Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Industrial Investment)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Investment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.
The order is short and relatively simple. It widens the powers to pay grant towards capital expenditure incurred on the provision of premises to be used for carrying on a qualifying industrial process.
The parent legislation provides that grant is payable only when a manufacturer provides industrial premises for his own use. The order will enable grant to be paid to any person who builds a factory and subsequently leases it to a manufacturing tenant. This amendment will have the effect of bringing the law in Northern Ireland broadly into line with that in Great Britain.
In Northern Ireland, advance factory building has tended to be the monopoly of the public sector, and there have been few attractions to the private sector to participate. The extension of grant in the way that the order provides will help to promote a climate in which the private investor will be persuaded to consider the industrial property market. The House will allow that in the current economic situation any measure which seeks to increase the resources available for industrial development should be enacted as quickly as possible.
There is a second reason for moving quickly. The special fiscal measure included in the Finance Act 1980 applies only to expenditure incurred before 27 March 1983. The Act provides for an initial 100 per cent. capital allowance on expenditure incurred on the construction of an industrial building with a gross internal floor space not exceeding 2,500 sq. ft. This incentive, married with the availability of regional development grant, has greatly encouraged the private sector to provide small factory units in Great Britain. I hope that there will be the same effect in Northern Ireland.
I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As the Minister has said, the order is another step in bringing Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. As such, we give it a very warm welcome. My right hon. and hon. Friends offer no objection to the Minister's decision to employ the shortened form of normal procedure, not to be confused with the various "Prayer Book" versions, nor do we object to the aims of the order. We must confess, however, that we are a little puzzled by the urgency of it all.
First, spare factory space is unfortunately not a scarce commodity in Northern Ireland. Secondly, as the grant will not be paid on what one might call a private advance factory until the premises are in use for a qualifying industrial process, is there really likely to be any rush of private investors at a time when it has proved impossible to retain many existing undertakings in Northern Ireland? As this would not appear on the face of it to be an attractive proposition for an investor, can the Minister give us some idea of the take-up rate under the existing broadly parallel positions of part I of the Industry Act 1972 in force; in Great Britain?
We should also like some clarification of the phrase "qualifying industrial process" which is used in some of the accompanying notes. May we assume that that definition will exclude any form of service industry, or, perhaps more important, any kind of repair facilities?
The portion of article 3 which provides for grants for alterations or extensions to a building or even part of a building is probably the most useful part of the order. Hitherto, manufacturers have had the great problem of trying to assess requirements, first in the short term and then in the long term. They have had to decide whether to opt for a modest beginning, with perhaps no scope for expansion, or to take the risk and go for a much larger factory than might sometimes seem to be prudent.
In the foreseeable future, it is to existing concerns and undertakings in Northern Ireland that we have to look. It is likely to be much more profitable, from the point of view of reducing unemployment, to graft on to what one might call a growing stock. It is more likely to flourish in the present economic climate than some exotic plant which may wither in the first chill breeze.
I should like to be clear about sites, and to know what is to happen in one of the so-called new towns where the entire town has been vested. One is never very clear by whom it was vested. There was the former Ministry of Development, and there were the new towns commissions of various shapes and sizes. Then, at a still later stage, we have what is now called the Department of the Environment, under the control of the Secretary of State. In that case, everything within the boundary of the town is vested.
If I may be forgiven for mentioning a constituency point, Antrim is perhaps the clearest example. Where is the private investor likely to find a site? If all potential sites are the property of the Government, will the Government release the land and not impose the unacceptable requirement that the developer will be given a comparatively short lease? This poses all kinds of problems, particularly if some of the investment is being derived from a very much larger undertaking on this side of the water.
May we assume that potential investors will not be unduly hampered by location problems? It is reasonable to expect that they will have to pay due regard to planning policies, but one hopes that those planning policies will be interpreted with flexibility. Far more important, they must be relieved of pressures designed to force them to go to areas which are not commercially attractive. The investors simply cannot be expected to commit capital in locations which are hampered by, for example, transport considerations, and where potential tenants would be very hard to come by. Neither should they be expected to settle for a location where their factory would stand a fair chance of being razed to the ground in the first year.
I am not advocating discrimination against particular areas on the ground of political or religious conviction, but it is common sense to say—and for the Government to say—that behavioural patterns of the natives in that area are bound to be a major factor when decisions are being taken by potential investors.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to underscore one point that was emphasised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) concerning the location that has been appointed in certain areas for the development of factories, and to give one illustration.
In the village of Portglenone there was on the map for development a location that was allocated for the private development of businesses. No business has ever been built in that area, for the simple reason that it is the worst area for terrorist activity in that village.
When the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who is on the Opposition Front Bench this morning, was in office in Northern Ireland, a certain potential investor wanted to build a factory in Portglenone. The planning authority said "You must build the factory in the area that has been appointed for it." The investor said "No. If I were to build there, I would be unable to get any work people to go to it. It is a very bad area. There have been many assassinations there."
The matter went to appeal, and the vice-chairman of the planning appeals commission recommended that the location should be changed, but the commission overruled the decision of its vice-chairman. I am glad to say that when the matter came to the right hon. Member for Mansfield, because there were 40 jobs at stake, he said "Jobs are more important than this argument". He let the matter go ahead, and there is a prosperous business there today.
Therefore, I underscore what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South, and I trust that we shall have an assurance from the Government today that in the matter of location, where there is a danger of a new factory being razed to the ground, or work people attacked, there will be some latitude, and that jobs will take first priority. That is essential at the present time in Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) in welcoming the order and the fact that it has been introduced under the abbreviated procedure.
The Minister of State was good enough to supply hon. Members with a personal letter commenting upon the nature and purposes of the order, under the date of 5 June, although an explanatory document had previously been issued as usual. There are one or two points of explanation on those two papers that I should like in a moment to raise with the Minister of State.
As the representative of a rural constituency in Northern Ireland—and part of the beginning of wisdom in regard to Northern Ireland is to realise that there is Belfast and there is the rest of Northern Ireland—my attention was particularly caught by the words in article 3
(including structural alteration, extension or improvement)".
That, I take it, would bring within the ambit of these grants the alteration, extension or improvement of existing buildings such as mill buildings.
The mill buildings across the face of Northern Ireland strike the eye of any observer, but they are of potential interest not only to the industrial archaeologist. Although they were not originally constructed for modern productive processes, many of those buildings, in the locations in which they stand are suitable, after necessary adaptation, for occupation and use by new industries; in fact, already many new industries have found a workable home in such buildings.
It is, therefore, particularly welcome that grants should now be extended to those entrepreneurs whose use of such buildings would be made possible by the work of third parties, financed by third parties, and carried out by third parties. There is particular importance in this possibility, because employment in Northern Ireland can be localised to a degree which it is perhaps hard in the rest of the kingdom, or in most of the rest of the kingdom, to envisage.
I imagine that those who promoted the parent Act had in mind primarily such enterprises as those whose collapse is now causing havoc and distress in Northern Ireland. Whether or not this was so in the past, I am convinced that in the future much of the resumption of industrial activity will take place on the part of relatively small firms and new enterprises that will not necessarily be located in the obvious industrial centres but will take opportunities of building and labour where they find them. For that purpose, and for stimulating that process, I believe that the grants available under the order could be helpful.
I have in my mind's eye as I speak the village, or perhaps it should be called the little town, of Annsborough, near Castlewellan, which, as one drives through it, appears to be comprised almost entirely of derelict mills, the vestiges of a nobleman's investment in the last century. I am not sure whether it was the Minister of State or his predecessor and I who were concerned for a long time over the possibility of one of these buildings being made available and adapted for a local entrepreneur with the prospect of employing local labour. The entrepreneur believed—I think he was right—that one of these buildings could have been made suitable for his purpose. I remember the difficulty experienced at that time in adapting his requirements to the then existing grant legislation. I hope, therefore, that enterprises of that sort will be helped by the extension of the grant powers which this order will make.
In introducing the order and in writing to hon. Members about it, the Minister of State laid stress upon the competition for capital between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom. No doubt it was right of him, and something of which we would approve, to make sure that there was no inequality which, so far as such competition existed, would place Northern Ireland at a disadvantage. I think, however, that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland will agree that, in the coming period, it is to local enterprise, local investment and local saving that we shall find ourselves looking for the revival of industrial activity in Northern Ireland. That will be nothing strange, historically or socially, to the Province.
I put it to the Minister of State that this should be seen as an opportunity for banks and similar institutions, which would hereby have the full necessary collateral for advances, to come in on the act and, if the entrepreneur himself has only enough capital to start the business, to inject the additional capital that would provide suitable buildings in a suitable place. It is wrong if those who have


investment capital in Northern Ireland, particularly the banks and institutions, do not look first to their own Province for opportunities of investment. I believe that if they look, particularly with this order in mind, they will find such opportunities to a surprising degree and perhaps in surprising locations.
That brings me to a technical point that I want to raise with the Minister of State arising out of the terms of the order and the principal Act of 1966 and his interpretation of it. The hon. Gentleman said in his letter that the premises that will attract grant—I believe technically called "the qualifying premises"—include premises
which are subsequently leased to another person carrying on a qualifying activity".
I take it that the use of crystal balls and such equipment will not be necessary in administering these grants. I therefore want to know how a decision is reached to give a grant for expenditure on premises that are subsequently to be leased to a person carrying on a qualifying activity. Will the entrepreneur and the investor, or possibly the entrepreneur the investor and the developer, have to be brought together and already be in contractual relations, and firm contractual relations, before these grants can be made? That, I must confess, was the interpretation to which I was inclined after the minute textual study to which I had subjected the Minister's letter of 5 June.
But then I was caught up short when I applied the same attentive study to the explanatory document which has a whole spiel in the first three or four paragraphs on the question of advance factories, what a splendid thing advance factories had been in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the moves made to tempt—I do not know with what success, although my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South put out a tentative inquiry about the matter—private capital into providing advance factories. Paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum, describing the order, said that it was
in response to the Government's policy of attracting private sector finance into advance factory provision.
Which is it? Is it into the speculative provision in the hope of getting a lessee some time in the future? Is it to that that the intended grants are to be directed? Or is it to cases where the parties concerned, including the potential entrepreneur, have been brought together?
If the Minister of State, in resolving that dilemma, embraces the second alternative, I personally would not feel disposed to criticise him. My belief is that we shall begin most fruitfully in these cases from a gleam in the eye of an entrepreneur and that the process will extend backwards from the entrepreneur to the choice of the site, to the finding of the building, builder or developer and, I hope, with the assistance of the Department of Commerce, to the location of an institution that is willing to provide the finance—not necessarily the working finance but the capital finance—for the premises.
On the face of it, there is a contradiction between what appeared to be the background and scope of the order, as stated in the explanatory document, and the explanation afforded by the Minister of State. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are here filling a gap that has always existed between the legislation on the mainland and that in Ulster.
That takes us back to the Industry Act 1972. Not all of us who were then sitting on the Government Benches look back on that Act with uninhibited enthusiasm for all parts of it. As it happens, they are not the parts with which we are concerned today. Although parts II and III of it applied

to Northern Ireland, part I did not. The now defunct Northern Ireland Parliament was provided with dispensation from the limitations imposed by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and was enabled to enact its own legislation on that subject. It was assumed, I imagine, that the Northern Ireland Parliament would amend its 1966 Act in whatever way was necessary to mirror the provisions of part I of the Industry Act 1972.
However, as it happened, the Northern Ireland Parliament and its various assorted successors were busy with other things in 1972 and 1973, notably with suicide and extinction. It is therefore perhaps not altogether surprising that they omitted to take the invitation afforded to them by section 18 of the 1972 Act. Now it is 1981. At last we, in this House, have got round, by means of an Order in Council, to doing what ought to have been clone straight away directly for that part of the kingdom as for any other.
I have no intention of annexing my normal lecture on legislation for the United Kingdom as a whole to the welcome I am offering to the order. I say simply that it is a solemn reflection that whatever benefits part I and this aspect of part I of the Act afforded in the rest of the Kingdom are now, only after a delay of nine years, to become available in the Province. Belated as that is, we welcome it. Particularly those of us who represent rural constituencies will have this order at the back of our minds when, as happily occurs from time to time, we are approached by those who, often with very little backing but often with a good deal of personal skill and experience, are contemplating setting up productive processes and employing their fellow citizens. We shall bear this order in mind, and we welcome its making.

Mr. Adam Butler: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate. Obviously I am delighted that the order should have been received. The speeches which have been made point to its potential benefits.
I sympathise with the latter remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in questioning why it has taken this time to bring forward the order. I think that I can only answer him by saying that it is because of the success of Government encouragement to the private sector to be involved in the provision of factory space in the last year or two. This answers the first point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). The amount of activity has been very considerable. It is because of that success that we have been encouraged to look at our own situation to see whether it is possible to move away from the prevailing situation of largely Government-only involvement. That Government involvement, with other things which go with it, has definitely inhibited the private developer.
Having seen this success in Great Britain, I felt that it was right—I welcome the fact that hon. Members have considered it right that we should use the shortened procedure—to bring the order to the House as quickly as possible.
I should like to reply briefly to the points of detail that have been raised. The qualifying industry is largely manufacturing. Service industry is not included. One reason for that is that in Northern Ireland there is already a market, albeit limited, in private building—for instance, for warehousing.
It is correct to say that the word "construction" in the order covers improvements. It covers alterations of a capital nature to parts of buildings. Any person is covered by the legislation, so that, whether we are discussing a private developer or a local bank, all qualify under the legislation. But—and this relates to the next point raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South, about when the grant becomes payable—to the question whether it would be possible for a developer, working perhaps in conjunction with a financial institution, to draw grant if he is building purely speculatively, building in the hope of achieving a let to an industrial user, the answer is "No."
My Department will need to be satisfied that the provisions of the measure have been met. Generally, that will require a lease to have been signed, or documentation showing a firm contractual position, perhaps, between the developer and the eventual user of the premises. That will be essential. I believe that that is what the right hon. Member for Down, South would welcome.
Sometimes it is helpful to have speculative building. That is what public advance factory building is about. But, generally, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in suggesting that one needs what he described as a gleam in the eye of the entrepreneur—that is to say, a man with an idea, a product which he wishes to develop, who is looking for support in regard to the premises in which he might carry out an activity.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South, asked about new town sites. Where land is effectively publicly owned, we would encourage its sale or letting on long leaseholds to a private developer. We want to remove, where possible, any inhibition to private building. Where the public ownership of land is such as inhibition, we have to overcome it in the way that I have described.
This measure is neutral as to discrimination in the location of any private building. It would not be the Government's intention to seek discrimination of any sort. Indeed, it is significant that the grant about which we are talking in this instance is not the discretionary grant, which applies to plant, equipment and buildings, but the investment grant which is of a fixed percentage, and certainly of a percentage substantially higher than that anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is the fixed 30 per cent. grant which would apply universally throughout the Province. Therefore, in that sense there is no discrimination between one part of the Province and another.
The Government see this order as a small way of bringing more resources to bear in our endeavours to improve the economic prospects of the Province through greater industrial development. Therefore I warmly commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Investment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Diseases of Animals)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,

That the draft Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 13 April, be approved.
This is a consolidation measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Before we begin the debate, it might be as well for me to comment on its scope. It will not be in order to discuss the police or general security matters, because the order covers only Northern Ireland Departments and not the Northern Ireland Office. Anything within the schedule is, of course, a subject which may be discussed.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of nearly £1,368 million out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and to appropriate that sum for the purposes shown in the schedule. The sum in question represents the balance of the main Estimates for Northern Ireland Departments for 1981–82 and three excess Votes incurred in the financial year 1979–80. The Public Accounts Committee has examined the excess Votes and has raised no objection to their being voted. Hon. Members should be aware that a sum on account amounting to £944 million has already been appropriated for 1981–82 under the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which was approved by the House on 9 March, bringing total main Estimates provision to £2,312 million.
More detailed information on the draft order can be found in the Estimates volume and in the document entitled "Statement of Excesses 1979–80", copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office. An explanatory memorandum has also been circulated to right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, Opposition spokesmen on Northern Ireland affairs, and others who took part in the last Appropriation order debate.
I start by referring to some of the main aspects of the draft order. The House will note that within the £48·7 million provided for agriculture, fisheries and forestry a sum of £3·8 million is included under Class I Vote 2 in respect of agricultural support. I should like to make it clear to the House that this does not include the £10 million special package of assistance which has been allocated to Northern Ireland's agriculture industry following two years of rapidly falling farm incomes. That package, which includes the special aid agreed with the EEC Commission for the development of beef cattle production announced in the House on 3 April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will also benefit the milk and intensive livestock sectors. Supplementary Estimates amounting to some £7·7 million for those additional schemes will be presented to the House in due course.
Pending approval of those Supplementary Estimates, expenditure on the new services in Northern Ireland will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil


Contingencies Fund. The balance of the £10 million assistance relating to the existing suckler cow subsidy, will fall on a United Kingdom Vote.
Moving on to industry and employment, hon. Members will see that Class II Votes 1 and 2 cover a wide range of expenditure aimed at the support and regeneration of the Northern Ireland economy. Those Votes provide amongst other things some £14·4 million towards the Department of Commerce's factory building programme; £57·8 million for industrial development grants to encourage the establishment and development of various industrial undertakings; £11·7 million for assistance to Short Brothers, the Northern Ireland aircraft manufacturer; and £46 million in assistance for the continued support of the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.
Class II Vote 2 also includes provision for the local enterprise development unit, which is responsible for providing advice and assistance to small firms in Northern Ireland and will therefore have a key role in relation to the business opportunities programme, which was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget Statement and was launched in Northern Ireland on 15 June.
We are convinced that small businesses have a vital part to play in promoting economic recovery, and the aim of the business opportunities programme is to bring to the attention of as wide an audience as possible the significant number of measures which the Government have taken to alter the balance of risk and reward in favour of the small business.
We shall need to continue to try to attract larger-scale inward investment to Northern Ireland. That is vitally important, not just because of the scale of job creation potential which it represents but because overseas companies provide a valuable market stimulus to local firms. They often bring with them new management and management styles, and they introduce new products and processes which help to disseminate up-to-date technologies.
I turn to the expenditure proposed in Class II Vote 3—functioning of the labour market. I hope that I need not emphasise the Government's profound concern about the current high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, significant and lasting improvements in levels of employment can come about only with the reduction and elimination of the virus of inflation, the unmistakable cause of rising unemployment over recent years.
In the short term, strenuous efforts are being made to sustain viable projects and to promote new employment through the industrial development programme to which I have just referred. We aim also to ease unemployment through various special employment measures, including an expansion of the youth opportunities programme during 1981–82 from 7,000 to 10,000 places, for which £11·9 million is included in the main Estimates, and the introduction of a new scheme, action for community employment—ACE—which has as its primary objective the creation of temporary employment opportunities for long-term unemployed adults, and for which £2·1 million is included.
Next I turn to the Votes related to energy. Class III, Vote 1 deals with expenditure associated with the Northern Ireland gas industry. Of the £24 million provided in that Vote, £13·9 million is required to meet continuing

operating losses incurred by gas undertakings and the remaining £10·1 million is to assist with conversion of consumer gas appliances.
In connection with the latter, the House will be aware that the Government have announced their intention to carry out further studies on the feasibility of a supply of natural gas to Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland's fields at Kinsale. We cannot, however, at this stage, predict the outcome of those studies and if the project cannot be demonstrated to be satisfactory and viable we shall have to continue with the arrangements for the rundown of the industry, which have been suspended for the time being, pending the Kinsale study.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When those studies are being carried out will the Government: be careful not to limit their consideration necessarily to the potential supply from Kinsale? Presumably, many of the considerations would be common to a supply from the mainland, as well as from the Republic, if not o a combination of both forms of supply.
It appears as if there were an almost exclusive concentration on the Kinsale project. I ask the Minister to confirm that it is understood that it would be wasteful and a distortion to concentrate exclusively on that possibility.

Mr. Alison: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. Much study had earlier gone into some of the ideas about a mainland pipe. Not only will the Kinsale studies be evaluated; necessarily, there will be a study of the inter-relationship between the two alternatives.
Still on energy, provision is sought in class III, Vole 2 for a grant of £79·8 million to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. Hon. Members will be aware that as part of the 1977 financial reconstruction of the service the Government agreed to make available £20 million in each of the five years from 1977–78 to help keep industrial And commercial tariffs in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland's heavy reliance on oil for electricity generation, the rapid increase in oil prices since that programme of support was launched has caused further financial problems for the service and has led to tariff increases which were imposing a sharp and unreasonable burden on electricity consumers.
The Government decided, therefore, that for 1981–82 industrial electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland should be on a par with, and domestic tariffs 5 per cent. above, the highest in England and Wales. This differential will be completely removed in 1982–83, and these tariff relationships will be maintained thereafter. The Government consider that this has been a step of great significance and importance for the Province, enabling the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to limit tariff increases this year to an average of 5 per cent. rather than the 35 per cent. that would otherwise have been required. To implement this decision, therefore, a sum of £59·8 million is required in addition to the £20 million to which I referred earlier as being the final payment under the 1977 financial reconstruction. The balance of the support for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service from public funds in 1981–82 will be a net loan from the Government. That explains the discrepancy in the figure.

Mr. Powell: In this connection, will the Minister be good enough to bring out the point that there may be an equal sum by way of subsidy paid to consumers in other parts of the United Kingdom, which is concealed by the


fact that it is an internal subsidy within the financing of the Great Britain electricity supply service? It would be helpful, if the Minister agrees, if he would emphasise that this is not necessarily a subsidy that is unique to consumers in Northern Ireland, although the financial form in which it has to be presented is necessarily so.

Mr. Alison: I am happy to confirm that. All references to discrepancies in per capita expenditure as between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are, in a sense, artificial and arise from the fact that throughout the mainland the rich parts of the country effect a transfer of net resources to the poorer parts, but this is not thrown up because of the financial presentation of these sums.
I now turn briefly to some of the major features of the environmental programmes covered by the draft order. Under Class IV, Vote 1, provision of £27·9 million is sought for new construction and improvement works on roads. The greater part of this provision will be obsorbed by contractual commitments on schemes such as Foyle bridge in Londonderry and the construction of a link between the M1 and M2 motorways in Belfast. Provision of £38·6 million is also made in the same Vote for operation and maintenance services on roads and bridges.
In housing, the Government in their allocation of public moneys in Northern Ireland are continuing to give high priority to tackling the serious problems that exist, especially in Belfast. Hon. Members with an interest in Northern Ireland affairs have had an opportunity recently to discuss these issues during a wide-ranging debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. Class V, Vote 1 includes provision for £143·7 million in assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The executive's 1981–82 budget for revenue and capital expenditure is £328 million, split broadly between £226 million revenue and £102 million capital. This compares with a total figure of £293 million for 1980–81 and represents a slight increase in real terms over the 1980–81 figure. In addition, the resources available to voluntary housing associations in Northern Ireland have been substantially increased, from £13 million in 1980–81 to £19 million in 1981–82.
I come now to provision for education. About £199 million is sought in Class VIII, Vote 1. This is largely for payment of teachers' salaries, but it also includes provision for grants on capital expenditure at voluntary schools. Class VIII, Vote 4 provides for the recurrent and capital expenditure of the education and library boards, which carry the regular running costs of most schools in the Province. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is experiencing a considerable fall in school rolls as a result of the decline in the number of births since 1964.
Here I should like to draw the attention of the House to. the Northern Ireland Department of Education's publication in March this year entitled "Schools and Demographic Trends—a Backcloth to Planning". This paper suggests criteria that school authorities might apply in considering the necessary rationalisation of school provision. Preliminary discussions on the paper have already taken place. But the changes envisaged cannot be accomplished overnight, and planning must start at the local level. I mention the subject today to reassure hon. Members that we in Northern Ireland are not overlooking

the possibilities of securing educational improvements as well as financial economies as a result of falling school rolls.
I turn next to the health and personal social services programme. In Class IX, Vote 1 the provision sought in the Estimate is £441·2 million, made up mainly of £430·7 million for current and capital expenditure by the health and social services boards. Although this level of provision imposes a tight financial discipline the sum available still provides for an increase in real terms in the current expenditure of the boards, which is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The money will be used mainly to bring into operation new facilities which are now ready or which will come on stream during the current year. Regrettably, the planned capital programme has had to be reduced, but the level of capital expenditure available will still be comparable to that in Great Britain and will provide for expenditure of £21·8 million.
The last major area of expenditure to which I want to refer is that contained in Class X of the main Estimates, dealing with expenditure totalling £417·5 million by the Department of Health and Social Services on social security benefits and allied payments. The cash value of these benefits is kept in parity with their counterparts in Great Britain, and, as hon. Members will be aware, administration of social security in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is so co-ordinated as to provide in effect a common system throughout the United Kingdom.
Finally, I noted during the March debate on the last draft Appropriation order that some right hon. and hon. Members expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the arrangements for dealing with Supply matters for Northern Ireland. Many of those present today will recall that last year my predecessor attempted to obtain the agreement of the House to introduce a new procedure based more or less on that used for the Second Reading debates on United Kingdom Consolidated Fund Bills. However, the unanimous agreement that he sought was not forthcoming, and as a result that proposal was taken no further. None the less, should right hon. and hon. Members have any suggestions for improving the structure of these debates, I shall be only too pleased to consider the matter once again. I emphasise that the Government are as anxious as anyone to ensure that the time available for considering Northern Ireland Supply matters is used to the best advantage.
I have referred in necessarily somewhat broad and telescoped terms to the main features of the draft order, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members will wish to raise other, perhaps more detailed, matters in due course. I am grateful to those who were good enough to give me advance notice of the points that specially concerned them. My colleagues and I will, as usual, attempt to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate. Any points that we do not get round to answering through lack of time will be dealt with, as usual, in correspondence later.
I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I welcome the order, which I regard as the third side of the triangle of Northern Ireland debates. We have had the security debate and the political debate, and now we are having the economic debate—the third one since I took up my present position as Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. I


should be in danger of repeating myself were it not for the continued deterioration of industry in Northern Ireland and the rapidly increasing number of people out of work.
I have taken part in such debates many times. It is basically a Consolidated Fund Bill debate to enable Northern Ireland Members to raise constituency points. I am sure that Northern Ireland Members have a number of points to put to the Minister and that they will do so forcefully.
Today We are voting a large amount of money for Northern Ireland. I should have welcomed a more detailed explanatory memorandum from the Minister, so that we could see exactly how the funds are being shifted around between Votes and how much additional money is being made available. Perhaps next year the Minister will consider that point in introducing memoranda for the winter and spring Appropriation debates.
We are disappointed not only at the relatively stagnant size of this Vote but at the way in which the money is being swopped between projects and areas of expenditure with no apparent reason or explanation. We sincerely hope that there will not be a repetition of last year's fiasco, when we wasted virtually the whole debate because the Government announced a massive reallocation of resources away from health, education, housing and social services in August shortly after the main Estimates had been debated in the House. I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will make it absolutely plain that this money will be available for the rest of the financial year and that there will be no rejigging of the books in a month's time.
Any debate on the economic situation of Northern Ireland should deal specifically with employment prospects, which have taken further serious blows during the past three months. Redundancies at Courtaulds, STC and Goodyear are now at the end of a long list that the Government have been compiling over the past two years. In addition, British Enkalon has announced more than 1,000 redundancies this week. However, there will be a spin-off not only in Northern Ireland but in some parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. One has only to think of Flixborough, at Scunthorpe. The case of British Enkalon was brought to my attention forcefully by Mr. Shierbeck and the trade unions seemingly months ago. I must point out that these redundancies must be shouldered fairly and squarely by the Government. Today there will be much talk about how much money the Government have offered. I rest my case with what will be said by Northern Ireland Members today. They understand, from dealings that we have had with British Enkalon previously, that a Labour Administration would not have allowed the plant to close. We worked on the assumption that it was better to keep jobs in Northern Ireland and to cost them in that way than to go out and look for another 1,000 jobs. How much more will it cost to find another firm that will provide 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland? How much money will have to be expended to recompense Northern Ireland for those jobs?
Northern Ireland is experiencing an industrial decline that is unknown in any other part of the United Kingdom. I put this fairly and squarely at the Government's door, because months ago management and unions at the British Enkalon plant agreed on a survival plan. I pay tribute to both sides for the reasoned and honest efforts that they made to save the factory. However, they have been sold down the river by the Government, who steadfastly refused to hand over the necessary cash to keep the company going in this most adverse of economic climates.
I ask the Minister to tell us exactly how and where he plans to find 4,500 new jobs for Northern Ireland. That represents the number of jobs that have been lost during the past five weeks. How much will it cost to replace those jobs? Any child knows that it is cheaper to keep a factory open and producing goods than to allow it to close and the machinery to go to waste. Furthermore, every extra man on the dole costs the country at least £5,000 a year in direct costs, not to mention the additional costs of wasted talent and training and everything else that is involved.
Even in these Estimates the supplementary benefit goes up by 30 per cent. to pay for unemployment. The figure now stands at £170 million. The money could have been used more usefully not to create new jobs but to hold on to the jobs that we have. In Northern Ireland we are living with the economics of the madhouse. The workers want to work and the managers want to keep the factories open, but the Government dictate that British Enkalon must close. It would have made good economic sense to keep British Enkalon going, but now it is no more than a name on the Government's long list of dishonour.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the closure of British Enkalon. Does he believe that taxpayers' funds should be committed on an open-ended and indeterminate basis to a business that has no prospect whatever of an eventual return to commercial viability?

Mr. Concannon: I make no apology. Here we see the great divide between myself and the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). In my view, it is part of the Government's process, particularly in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman had 25 per cent. unemployment in his constituency, he would rethink some of his views. I am not seeking an open-ended commitment. From my dealings with Mr. Shierbeck and many others in Northern Ireland I know that arrangements can be made, as has been done on many occasions, and as I did, to keep jobs in Northern Ireland. One must put on the balance sheet not the jobs being lost but the effect on Northern Ireland as a whole, such as how much has to be paid for unemployment and for other jobs commensurate with the jobs being lost.
These are not the economics of the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is a special case in this respect. It does not have the industrial base that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. For that reason it must be viewed differently. I make no apology for saying that, because we see the proof of what was done in the four years of the Labour Administration. We put those things in the profit and loss account not only of British Enkalon but of Northern Ireland as a whole.
At the same time as factories are being allowed to close wholesale cuts are being made in various budgets in this year's Estimates for Northern Ireland. The funds for industrial support and regeneration are to be cut overall from £26 million to £24 million, and within Class II, Vote 1, the financial provision for industrial land and buildings is to be sliced from £21 million to £18 million. The increases that are being made are marginal and will hardly cover the increase in inflation, let alone help to overcome the adverse economic circumstances that the Government have created.
In desperation, I look to see what the Government are doing to counter unemployment and I find only piecemeal


attempts to patch up the problem, without any sign of serious concern. Band-aid will not do where major surgery is required.
The employment services budget has been cut at a time when more people than ever require those services. Almost one in five of the working population in Northern Ireland is now on the dole. By the end of the year, probably one-quarter of the Province will be out of work. It is a bitter irony that there are currently more people without jobs than at work in manufacturing industry in the Province. That is a far cry from the last year of the Labour Government, when at least 140,000 were employed in manufacturing industry and no more than 60,000 were unemployed. That figure of 60,000 was plastered on the wall of my office, because I used to think that it was a disgrace. Any hon. Member who came into my office would see the figure stuck on the front of my desk as a reminder to me. If I did not remind myself, the trade unions and other people reminded me about it every day.
Perhaps the most serious unemployment problem is that of the young. In June there were 8,578 school leavers without jobs. Who knows how many more there are in the main figures who left school last summer or in the spring of 1980 and still have not found jobs?
I can remember the sheer pleasure of leaving school and doing my first day's work. It happened to me at the age of 14. It was not all that hard a job in those days, but leaving school and getting my first job gave me great pleasure. I cannot describe my delight at picking up my first wage packet. It was not the size of it that mattered—because it was not a great deal—but the fact that it was mine and that I had been to work for it rather than go to social security for it. I remember my own delight, but the fact is that many schoolchildren will not benefit from that experience. They will go straight from school to State benefits and not feel part and parcel of the economic system.
The events of recent weeks must have brought home to the Government and Northern Ireland Ministers especially that disaffected youth with no stake in society have nothing to lose in street rioting and criminal activities. In Northern Ireland the scale of unemployment will only play into the hands of terrorist organisations and thereby create more social upheaval and misery. If for no other reason, the Government must alter their policies. In creating a generation of disillusioned young people with no say or interest in society they are storing up trouble for many years to come.
Of all the cuts in the employment services budget, the reduction in funds for Enterprise Ulster is the most incomprehensible. Over the past nine years this organisation has given employment to more than 100,000 individuals in recreational and community projects. Enterprise Ulster has always been much more than a temporary relief from the dole queue. It has offered job security and acted as a genuine bridge between unemployment and regular employment. This well-established corporation with proven social and environmental achievements is now to be sacrificed for schemes such as Action for Community Employment, which are no more than a temporary respite from the dole queue.
In view of the severe cut from £13 million to £9½ million, it is time that the Minister made clear his

intentions about Enterprise Ulster. Will he give a firm assurance that the organisation will have the financial resources in the future to carry on with the worth while and valuable projects that have characterised its work in the past? There is no rhyme or reason why Enterprise Ulster should be cut down in this way when it has served the community so well. It looks very much to me as though it has been sacrificed on the altar of dogma and ideology.
Three times a year we allocate large amounts of money to help Northern Ireland's industry, but we rarely hear of that money being put to good use. I have already referred to British Enkalon, which is one instance where Government funds could have been of great benefit. Another example in respect of which the Civil Service dispute has caused serious cash flow problems is Abbey Meats. I understand that the work force is now on a three-day working week and that closure is imminent unless the Government can help with a cheap short-term loan to tide over the company. I ask the Minister to make it clear whether he intends to help Abbey Meats. If not, what possible ground can he have for refusing such small interim aid?
I have mentioned Abbey Meats and British Enkalon, but my purpose is to stress the absolute need for a change in direction and thought, if not for the rest of the United Kingdom certainly for Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am not necessarily disagreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. However, does he agree that a great deal of the difficulty facing Abbey Meats arises from the complicated mechanism of the intervention board? No Opposition Member associates efficiency with any branch of the EEC, but this is a particularly cumbersome operation where, even in what might be described as peace time in terms of the Civil Service dispute, there is always great delay. It is not uncommon to be telephoned by the company and told that the intervention board currently owes the company perhaps £2½ million.

Mr. Concannon: That is undoubtedly a factor, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it would not have put me off in my time at the Northern Ireland Office. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I would have found a way through the difficulty.
I find a similar lack of concern on the part of Government agencies towards a small employment project in County Tyrone. I refer to Tyrone Tweeds Limited, which has been refused aid by the local enterprise development unit. Before going any further I ought to remind the House of the interest that the Secretary of State has in small enterprises. Speaking on 15 June at the launch of a business opportunities programme, the right hon. Gentleman said:
But there is still untapped potential in Northern Ireland, essentially 'a man with an idea', and we must do everything possible to encourage him—not only because of the jobs he can provide but also because the home-grown company with its roots in the Province is the one most likely to provide the longer-term potential for growth in the economy.
Those are all good sentiments, with which I agree. But obviously that message has not filtered through to the LEDU, which has refused aid to Tyrone Tweeds on the most shaky of grounds. The decision has caused a great deal of bitterness, since a number of those involved in the venture were made redundant from Spamount mill earlier this year and had spent their redundancy money on this project.
I sincerely hope that it is not a politically motivated decision. The fact that Tyrone Tweeds is a workers' co-operative can, in my view, only enhance its chances of success. The fact that the Government have cut funds available to the LEDU may have something to do with the decision, but the truth is that no one really knows. I urge the Minister to look into this matter in some depth to find out whether there is some way in which this small but determined group of highly skilled people can be helped to produce a high-quality product which is much in demand.
People often come to me with their problems in Northern Ireland, including trade unions and others. I offer a piece of advice to the Northern Ireland ministerial team. There seems to be a lack of communication at times. I receive many complaints about it. In my view, such people should be in closer contact with the ministerial team. I do not mean formal meetings. I have in mind informal contacts where Ministers are more accessible to people. I do not want to give specific examples, but I assure the Minister that many people travel from Belfast to see me and find that they are able to do so almost at the drop of a hat, but they tell me that they cannot see Ministers because of certain rules and regulations. I find that hard to understand, but perhaps the problem could be solved by way of a chat between me and the Minister behind the Chair after the debate.
In these Estimates a considerable sum of money is allocated to the energy services in Northern Ireland. Some £24 million has been made available for the orderly run-down of the gas industry, whereas virtually nothing was allocated last year. A number of serious questions arise on this subject, and I am sure that they will be taken up by other hon. Members. Now that the decision to run down the gas industry has been put on ice pending discussions with the Irish Government on a natural gas pipeline north, the future of Northern Ireland's gas industry has a question mark against it.
Is the Minister in a position to say what progress is being made in the pipeline discussions? Further, can he tell the House about the probable use of the money if other decisions are made? Will he also assure the House and Northern Ireland gas consumers that any gas brought from the South will be made available at a price that domestic consumers can afford?
I sincerely hope that some agreement on this matter between North and South can be found. We have always believed that the best interests of all the people in Ireland are served where there is co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Can the Minister say whether there have been any talks recently about restoring the electricity interconnector between the North and the South? Northern Ireland produces excess electricity, which could be sold as backup capacity to the South. Both North and South would save a combined total of over £5 million a year if the interconnector were restored.
I know the difficulties involved because I tried on various occasions to restore the interconnector for the benefit of both North and South. But there are the problems of terrorist attacks. There was another last night when, unforunately, another of our soldiers was killed. I pay tribute to our soldiers and the security services. Such activity has an effect on the economy not only of the North but of the South. If the stories are true, the attack was from over the border. I stress what I said at Question Time

yesterday—that we would take the blandishments of other Governments better if we thought that they were backing them with other activities.
Security measures are improving all the time. If the Minister tells me that there is no possibility of restoring the interconnector, I shall understand. However, we must keep the matter to the fore so that we can connect it as soon as possible for the convenience not only of the North but of the South.
I note that the Government have this year made an additional sum available to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service to keep down tariffs for domestic and industrial consumers. I hope that the impression left by the Prime Minister in her speech to the assembled few is not correct. I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to follow the example that we set five years ago by giving large-scale aid to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. We regarded that as essential to counteract the high reliance on expensive oil to produce electricity.
I am sorry that the Government are not doing more for domestic consumers. The Northern Ireland tariff is 5 per cent. higher than that which applies in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the highest tariff is in London. Northern Ireland people earn smaller incomes and yet they are asked to pay for electricity an even higher price than consumers in London. The people of Northern Ireland have to pay for the high reliance on oil as the result of a decision taken some years ago. In spite of Government funds, electricity in Northern Ireland is still the most expensive in the United Kingdom. It is slightly more expensive than it is in London. The withdrawal of fuel assistance payments for people on supplementary benefit will not be fully compensated for by holding down prices.
It is not clear from the Estimates where the £40 million has come from. We are always a little worried, after the fiasco of last year, about finding extra money for specific jobs in case they have to be paid for at the expense of something else. May we have an assurance that the £40 million has not come from funds allocated to other schemes? I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer.
Every consumer in Northern Ireland has a right to know for how long the help will be available. It would be a useless exercise if the £40 million were given this year and cut back in subsequent years. I hope that the Minister will say something about that. Whatever aid is made available to the energy services, there is unlikely to be any change in the employment and industrial problems of Northern Ireland as long as the present policies continue.
I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is an alternative economic strategy for Northern Ireland. We have stressed over and over again that coherent policy, with new public enterprise and planning agreements, is the only sound and rational way of coping with regional deprivation. In short, two things would help the Northern Ireland economy. The first is a recovery in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. That can be brought about only by a change in Government or a change in policy. The second is a much stronger regional approach, with a fixed programme of State investment and a strong programme to direct private investment to the Province.
So long as there is Tory rule in Northern Ireland, poverty, unemployment and social deprivation will thrive. Who would dare to speculate about the effects that those forces will have on the campaigns of terror and violence if unemployment rampages in Northern Ireland, and if, as was said in yesterday's debate, youth unemployment is a


contributing factor to what is happening in the rest of the country? We must take youth unemployment in Northern Ireland seriously. It distresses me that Northern Ireland is no longer looked upon as a special case in that respect. If it were, some of what has happened in the last six or seven months would have been regarded differently and more rationally.
This debate presents an opportunity for hon. Members to make constituency points. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends will back some of my comments about employment. We shall not do anything untoward about the allocation of funds, but it is our right and duty to suggest where the funds should go. Anything that I have not covered will be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). He manages to cover topics well in our two-man team. He does a wonderful job, and I thank him for his backing. The Minister of State has had a torrid time of late. He will find this economic debate a relief and a change. He has borne some of the brunt of what has happened in Northern Ireland with great courage and fortitude. I wish him success.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to take up the Opposition spokesman's argument about unemployment. Northern Ireland is in a serious and sad position. I trust that from the Government Benches today we shall have a full statement about British Enkalon. The House and the people of Northern Ireland need to know the facts. What really terrifies me is that factory after factory is being closed. Thousands of people are being made unemployed. It seems that in neither the near nor distant future is there any possibility of employing these people in proper numbers.
People in Northern Ireland who are being made redundant are losing hope. It is often said in Northern Ireland "If you lose your job when you are 50 you will never work again." It is also said "When you leave school you will possibly not work for five or six years." That strikes at the heart of hope among the people of Northern Ireland.
Is it true that British Enkalon was prepared to stay in operation for at least three more years and that it was prepared to soldier on provided that the Government met it with the necessary moneys? We all know the state of the man-made fibre industry. The cycle could turn and there could be opportunities to retrieve something of that industry in Northern Ireland. How much money will be spent on redundancy payments?
Would it not have been possible for the Minister to have retained that factory for Antrim? Although it is situated in the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), very many people from my constituency are employed there. Therefore, we have a common interest.
Carrickfergus has been decimated. Factory after factory has closed. We welcome the Minister's activity in seeking new industry, but what are a couple of hundred jobs compared with the many thousands of people who have been made redundant in that area? While the Minister might do his best to find new industry, surely it would be far easier to retain the industry already there, with its work force, expertise, apprentices and existing order books?
I make a plea, even at this late hour, that the Minister should reconsider the whole position of British Enkalon. What hope is there for the people in that area? Conservative Members talk about taxpayers' money. It will be paid out in redundancy payments, unemployment benefits and other benefits. I would rather see it invested in keeping people in employment than in keeping them unemployed. British Enkalon is in a serious position. I pay tribute to its management and its efforts over the years to help the area. I do not know of any other management that has come forward over and over again with its own investment to try to keep the factory in business.
There has been co-operation between the work force, the trade unions and the management. They have done their best to keep the factory in business. Now, sadly, it is to close. I do not know where jobs will be found for the people of that area.
The whole planning, development and housing programme of Antrim was tied to the British Enkalon factory. It was the keystone to the rebuilding of the town. Now, that keystone has been pulled away. What future is there for its population? Governments have encouraged people to go to Antrim. They paid them large sums of money to take the oxygen of Antrim. Posters said "Taste the country air of Antrim. The Government will support you if you leave the city'. Now that they have torn up their roots from Belfast, gone to Antrim and established their homes, they find that it has all been in vain. The Minister must tell us today whether he intends to continue with that policy.
I hope that the Minister will tell us something about small businesses. A small fish processing plant in Glenarm is the only business there which provides employment for women. We have enormous difficulty in getting any support from the local enterprise development unit. The company is asking for a loan of £30,000 because it has a cash flow problem. It is having great difficulty in raising that money. If the factory closes there will be no scope for female employment in the area. The Minister needs to take on board what has been said to him about the LEDU. I have found great difficulty in obtaining support for small businesses from the LEDU. I do not care which way the businesses are organised, or who are their managements. As long as they give people employment, they should be supported. That is an important matter and I hope that the Minister will reply to it.
I wish to draw attention to the position of Abbey Meats, and to the interjection of the hon. Member for Antrim, South about the payment of intervention money. Government representations to the EEC authorities need to be made forcefully. The money owing to Abbey Meats should be forced out of the EEC. The firm is entitled to that money.
I turn to the question of agriculture. It is the largest industry in Northern Ireland. The farming community has received many bitter blows. We welcome the short-term measures, but the Government must be more active. One great difficulty is that the person responsible for both education and agriculture is not answerable to the House. It is difficult to get the noble Lord to meet deputations. I greatly resent that. No doubt if the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will also make that point. There is a drainage office in Coleraine. The borough council, which covers part of my constituency and part of the constituency of the hon. Member for Londonderry, wanted to send a


deputation of four, accompanied by the two Members of Parliament, to meet the noble Lord. His office telephoned to say that he would not meet a deputation of six because it was too large and that he would meet only a deputation of four. The office wanted the two Members of Parliament to drop out so that the noble Lord could meet a deputation of four councillors. If we did not drop out, two of the councillors would have to drop out. I told the noble Lord's office that I was a member of this House. I was told that he would be prepared to meet me on my own to discuss the matter, but that he was very busy. I said that he would be less busy if he saw the whole deputation at once. It was only after I insisted that it was eventually agreed that the whole deputation would meet the noble Lord.
I have asked the noble Lord to meet deputations on many occasions. I have found great difficulty. Perhaps that is one of the problems of communication mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It is an important matter, which needs to be examined. The agriculture industry and the farming community are very sore about that. They form the largest industry in Northern Ireland. Someone should be answerable in this House.
During the last plenary session of the European Assembly, a good proposal was accepted, which will benefit the farmers of the South of Ireland. They will receive support for the interest rates that they are paying on their loans. The agricultural committee, chaired by Sir Henry Plumb, said that that would be very helpful to farmers in Northern Ireland and recommended that it should apply to them. However, no representation has been made by the Government to the authorities about the possibility of a grant for the farmers of Northern Ireland.
I should like an assurance from Ministers on the Front Bench today that they will take up the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and that the farmers in Northern Ireland will receive the same benefit. Those farmers have made applications for and have received substantial loans from the banks, and now, with the crippling interest rates, they are feeling the burden and the heat of the day.
I am opposed to the EEC, but I believe that when we are in it we should get as much cream out of it as we can. Every penny that we pay in we should get back. The time has come for the Government to push those schemes. There is a dilatoriness about the Government's making applications for the money that is available from the EEC. The farmers of Northern Ireland would be much helped if they could get some relief from the crippling interest rates that they must pay because of the schemes into which they have entered to improve their farms. Now they find that they are not getting the cash back that they thought they would have from that investment. The Government should take that matter on board.
I now come to the matter of drainage. I do not understand the Government's thinking on agriculture in Northern Ireland. Anyone who knows Northern Ireland knows that the rivers there drain towards the north, yet it has been decided that the one main drainage office in Coleraine has to be closed. The office will be operated from as far away as Omagh, in County Tyrone. I do not understand that decision. The area office at Coleraine provided an important service in the lower reaches of the river Bann. The lower Bann is the main artery of drainage of the Province and controls the water level of Lough Neagh. It is the only navigable river in the Province. The professional engineers and technical staff at Coleraine

have a detailed knowledge of the river and the many problems associated with it. Flooding and drainage problems usually occur at downstream ends of rivers. Some 75 per cent. of the rain which falls in the Province flows to the sea through the rivers controlled from Coleraine. It is therefore the most logical place for a major office, as the professional staff are available to deal with problems immediately as they arise. Yet we discover, because we are told that it is in the interests of cutting back expenditure, that this office and its functions as a main office will be moved to Omagh.
The only commercial salmon fisheries—Foyle, Roe, Bann and Bush—are located in the area. Problems of flooding in the urban areas of Londonderry, Ballymena and Coleraine are the responsibility of the Coleraine office. Anyone who knows anything about the environment knows that there has been constant flooding in those areas. The main drainage scheme in hand at the moment is at the river Maine which is also in this area. The farming community is appalled at the suggestion that that drainage office should be run down and should become only a second-rate office. No doubt, the hon. Member for Londonderry will have something further to say about that matter.
As that matter comes into Class I, I should now like to pass on to Class III, in regard to the rundown of the gas industry. I should like the Minister to tell us what is happening on County Fermanagh. Has he any knowledge of the prospects of a gas strike in Fermanagh? The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know what is happening. I should also like to emphasise that I feel that if there is to be an opportunity of getting gas, we should get our gas within the United Kingdom family. I do not understand why the Government are stopping to see whether it is feasible to have gas from Kinsale, when it is feasible to have gas from the North Sea. If there is trouble about having the interconnector, there will be more trouble having a gas land line. I know that we cannot discuss security, but we know what happened and it is a terrible thing that a British soldier was shot and that the shots were fired from across the border. That is serious. I believe that we need a statement from the Front Bench about gas. What is the Government's thinking on the matter?
What I have read from the South of Ireland does not seem hopeful in terms of what will happen. The Minister is duty-bound to tell the people of Northern Ireland why he thinks that we should not have gas from the United Kingdom and that the only way that we should get gas is from the Republic. We get all sorts of gas of other kinds from the Republic that we do not appreciate.
I should also like to refer to harbour facilities, which come under Class IV. I should like to ask the Minister again about the harbour facilities in Rathlin and Ballycastle,. If there is to be a strike of oil or even gas in the north channel, we should know something about what facilities will be available. Rathlin island is the only large island off the shores of Northern Ireland that is inhabited. Its inhabitants have had a rough time. The time has come for us to know what is happening about the proposals for access to the Rathlin harbour and to Ballycastle because those are linked. Some hon. Members may not know that when the boat arrives at Ballycastle, if one does not get off quickly one can be swept away. People who have travelled have almost been swept into the sea at


Ballycastle. Some improvements have been made to the harbour on Rathlin island, but others need to be made. Has any progress been made on harbour facilities in that class?
I do not want to talk at length on housing, but I am deeply concerned, as a Member from a rural constituency, about the schemes that are going ahead in Belfast. Those schemes need to go ahead, but will the other schemes for rural cottages now be seriously cut back? I have had word from part of my constituency that water and sewerage schemes in rural cottages there have now been put into cold storage. Can we have an assurance that, while progress is made in the city of Belfast—no doubt those who represent the city are well able to put the views on housing—the schemes for rural cottages will go ahead?
People who have no facilities or amenities and who need water, light and sewerage facilities should have those essential services. It is all very well to talk about cuts and say that we must share what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom, but the Northern Ireland people have already suffered serious cutbacks. The rates that they are paid for their jobs are less than the average wages for the rest of the United Kingdom. Their cost of living is higher. When one takes all those matters into consideration one realises that Northern Ireland is bearing the burden and heat of the day. We need to find out from the Minister about those schemes.
I now turn to education. I am alarmed at the policy that seems to be developing on closing rural schools. That concerns me. The argument is put that there will not be so many children, and that the children will therefore be bussed to the nearest village or town. A new school was built in my constituency at Rasharkin. The powers that be said that the birth rate was decreasing, so they would not build too large a school; but they closed rural schools to pilot, shepherd or bus children to that school, and it is now overcrowded, with Portakabins all around the playground. It would have been better to keep the rural schools open. There is now a policy to close rural schools in Portglenone, even though there are plenty of children available to attend them.
I do not like rural schools being closed. They are part of the community and help to hold it together. They cement rural society. The teachers are looked on as friends by the children and parents, and pupils get a good grounding in the three Rs. I am perturbed about the closures, and would like to know whether it is the Government's policy to continue them.
The Minister made a slip about the democratic process. I wish that we had a bit of democracy in our education system. Because of the fall out of the vote, the largest parties in the Province will not be represented on the education boards. An article in a newspaper said that the Official Unionists had drawn attention to that fact, but I had already written to the Minister pointing out that in the past members were appointed to give a fair spread of representation on the boards. The noble Lord thanked me for the representation, but told me that he would not be appointing anyone whom my party nominated. I am not a bit surprised. Defeated Alliance members are appointed to the boards, but evidently democratic success in Northern Ireland tells against us. Is the undemocratic rule to continue, or will the boards be changed? Although we

do not know exactly what he has in mind, the Minister has a suggestion about changing health boards. I hope that he will also do something about education boards.
At Cambridge House school, Ballymena, the board did not keep to the rules about transferring children. The parents applied to the ombudsman, and there was a public hearing, which I have never heard of before. The board and the parents put their cases, and the parents won. Yet they have never had compensation; nor has the ombudsman's recommendation about transfer been fulfilled. What good is it to win an appeal if the education board just thumbs its nose? The Minister says that it is a matter for the board, but the time has come for the board to abide by the ombudsman's decision. The parents had to pay lawyers and counsel, yet when they win their case they get no satisfaction or justice. I trust that the Minister will find out what is to happen.
The Minister skated over the cutbacks in health and social services. He said nothing about how long the new Antrim hospital will be in cold storage and what will happen to the other hospitals in the area. Will they be continually run down, or will money be available to give the people in the area the acute services that they need? The Waveney hospital was to be the main acute hospital. What money will be available for that hospital, and what are the prospects for the staff in the other hospitals? There is a big question mark over the whole situation in North Antrim because of the decision to build the new hospital, which has been delayed because of the cuts. What is happening in the meantime? People are concerned because of the blight that has developed through hospitals being run down or their purpose changed.
I trust that we shall have some satisfaction from the Minister on matters that concern the people of my constituency and the people of Northern Ireland generally.

Mr. Wm. Ross: We have heard complaints about the failure of the intervention board to pay money to a meat firm in South Antrim, but that is not the only meat firm that is suffering. A meat plant in my constituency is also having the gravest difficulty in extracting £¾ million from the intervention board. If the Minister takes up the problems of Abbey Meats, will be also consider the other meat plants in Northern Ireland, some of which may not have complained but which, on the evidence available, are almost certainly experiencing the same problem? The matter should not be allowed to continue. The sums involved are substantial and are a heavy drain on the resources of the plants, which are trying to provide employment in exceedingly difficult circumstances.
The subjects in the Appropriation debate are taken in alphabetical order, and, as I have long been my party's agricultural spokesman I take great pleasure in starting with agriculture. I shall not rehearse all the difficulties. The Government know the situation precisely. They have been approached by hon. Members, the Ulster Farmers Union and the ancillary industries, so there is no excuse for their not knowing the problems. Equally, there is little excuse for the fact that no serious efforts have been made to resolve the difficulties.
To illustrate the difficulties I point out that in 1978 the net income for Northern Ireland agriculture was £66 million; in 1980, the estimate is about £9 million. That is not the whole story. Northern Ireland produces about 6 per


cent. of the United Kingdom production. Before the present drop in incomes we received about 5 per cent. of the total United Kingdom net income. In 1980 we got only 1 per cent. of the net income, which is perhaps the most horrifying aspect of the problem. The total net income has dropped by an enormous amount in real terms.
Farmers exist and expand basically by ploughing back profits, so where an amount sufficient merely for living expenses is made investment ceases. It does not take much intelligence to realise that that is what happened in this case. When one considers the drop in sales of farm machinery, and so on, it is clear to one that farmers have cut back on inessentials and have tried, as far as possible, to live or the accumulated effects of past years' investment. That can happen for a year or two, but the effects are rapidly seen in lost production, and once one has started clown that hill it is extremely difficult to reverse the trend and get back to where one once was. Farm incomes must be improved, and that improvement must be put in hand soon.
There was the £10 million of EEC money that was found in the spring by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should like to know a little more about what is going on. Apparently, some of the problems have been ironed out, but it is clear from what I am told that not all of them have been solved. The £10 million is a drop in the ocean, anyway.
So far, we have been told about the A1 scheme. I understand that about £2 million is going to pigs and poultry and £3½ million to £4 million to milk. But the funds in respect of those three aspects of farming are not going directly to the farmers. They are going to the milk distributors, the processors and the egg packers, on the theory that what is paid to the middle man will filter back to the farmer. In the highly competitive world in which we live, I fear that it is just as likely to filter the other way, to the consumer, especially when faced with imports of eggs and other subsidised produce from all over the place.
How much of that £10 million will wind up in the farmer's bank balance at the end of the day? Have the Government investigated that? Are they yet in a position to give an estimate? If they are not, I fear that instead of receiving £10 million the farmers will receive very much less, and perhaps nothing at all. A re-examination is needed of EEC and, indeed, Government funding to Northern Ireland farmers. We have lost schemes such as milk aid, which were far more use than these fancy schemes where so much is lost in the process and never reaches the pockets of those who are supposed to receive it.
There is one matter that I believe the Government could do something about. I understand that there has been some movement recently. Will the Government explain what the position now is with regard to school milk? Under EEC rules, if the Government provide 25 per cent. of the funding the EEC will provide the rest. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has failed to convince the Commission that as the Government provide the finance for education and local government in Great Britain the money involved should be treated as Government expenditure. The Commission is not too willing to accept that, and there seems to be some difficulty.
Even if that were accepted, however, it would not help the Northern Ireland situation very much. We are far worse off, because the education and library boards in Northern

Ireland have no financial independence but must act simply as an extension of the Minister's arm. I understand that the Department has instructed the education and library boards not to provide school milk. If that is so, the agriculture industry in Northern Ireland is being denied, by Government decision, moneys which otherwise would be available to it. If that is the case, the Government should tell us today why they have done that and how they intend to get around the problem and obtain that extra money for the farmers and, indeed, the schoolchildren of Northern Ireland, where at present only 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. can get milk at school. The difficulty is a spin-off of the present direct rule system and is another good reason for ensuring that democracy returns to the control of the boards in Northern Ireland and that we stop the boards acting as an extension of the Government's arm instead of for the people who elect them.
I turn to the various smuggling rackets that are currently operating. As the Minister knows, in Northern Ireland agriculture there are myriad smuggling schemes operating across the border, making money in one way or another. The smuggling is generally from the United Kingdom into the Republic. I understand, however, that pigs are currently being smuggled from the Republic into Northern Ireland and then sent openly, and apparently legally, back across the border so as to collect the cost of the United Kingdom MCA. There is also, apparently, cattle smuggling into Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us what is going on? Are reports of the IRA acting as agents or contractors in the smuggling rackets correct? Can the Government also give an estimate of the cost of all these rackets to the public purse in Northern Ireland?
Until the border is properly controlled and sealed off, with only a few legal crossing points so that smuggling can be controlled, the problems will continue. They extend, of course, far wider than agriculture—to all manner of other things coming into Northern Ireland across that frontier, which lies wide open. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to discuss those matters today, but no doubt we shall manufacture an opportunity to do so on a future occasion.
I turn to the fisheries aspect of Northern Ireland agriculture. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to touch upon the general sea fishing problems of Northern Ireland later in the debate. I wish to deal with the specific problems of the salmon fisheries. This is a very valuable . resource for the tourist industry, for the recreational activities of people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, from the commercial point of view. It is a most important resource and it is under severe threat from the activities of poachers, who, although they have salmon licences, are fishing with equipment such as nylon monofilament nets, which are illegal in Northern Ireland waters, as well as using nets which are too long, and fishing in areas where they are not supposed to be.
I welcome the success of a week or so ago, when a major poacher was caught and heavily fined as a result of his activities. I hope that he loses his Northern Ireland licence, which I understand he possesses although he lives not in Northern Ireland but in the Republic.
I draw the Minister's attention also to the serious shooting incident on Lough Foyle yesterday week, in which a protection vessel was fired upon by poachers. It is not the first time that this has happened in the Foyle system, but to my knowledge it is the first time that it has happened on the waters of Lough Foyle itself. As the


Government of this nation do not accept that any part of the waters of Lough Foyle are under the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic, and as the policing of the lough, the protection of fisheries vessels and the enforcement of the law on the waters of Lough Foyle are entirely our responsibility, what steps will the Government take to ensure that law and order are maintained on those waters in future years, and, indeed, in future days— for Heaven only knows what happened there last night? This is a continuing problem that must be dealt with. Until it is properly dealt with and the Navy has a greater presence in the area, especially off the north coast, I fear that the salmon will continue to be decimated.
The House should be clear that last week's success was due entirely to the muscle that the Navy can provide. But my understanding is that the vessel that looks after that salmon fishery also has responsibility for the Manx herring fishery and for the west coast of Scotland. I fear that at the height of the salmon season, when the fish are concentrated and are an easy prey—not only in Northern Ireland but on the west coast of Scotland—the fishery protection vessel has too much to do in the short period of two months and cannot properly cover the ground. There were considerable problems last year, with the fisheries protection vessel of the Fisheries Conservancy Board simply not having the manpower to deal with the poachers. This year there is not the money to pay the manpower to keep it afloat.
This is a totally unacceptable position, because this is a resource that is subject to pressure and is being attacked in many ways throughout the world, and will inevitably disappear, with the sad result that some people will lose their livelihood and many more will lose pleasure. In addition, the tourist industry in Northern Ireland will lose a matchless asset. I hope that the Government will take seriously what I am saying and what other people have said, and take steps to deal with the problem.
Beyond that, we have the situation at Toome, where the poachers seem to take over periodically and do precisely as they please, because the area is so dangerous that the police cannot keep a permanent presence there and, as I have already said, the Fisheries Conservancy Board does not have the manpower. Cash is needed for additional manpower for the two or three months in question, and I see no reason why it should not be provided.
The Black report on angling is relevant to all these matters and I hope that there will soon be a discussion on it. If it cannot take place in this Session of Parliament, I hope that it will take place in the next Session. Meanwhile, will the Minister give an undertaking that the staff of the Fisheries Conservancy Board will be told what their future is to be? At present, the report having been published, the staff do not know what is to happen to them. They are asked to do a very difficult job without any guarantee as to their future. They have no guarantee that their jobs will remain if the new fisheries body is set up. The staff should be told precisely what their future is to be, regardless of the Government's views on whether there is to be a new inland fisheries body. If people are to do a difficult job they need to have some assurance that they will be properly treated and cared for, and that they have a future in their chosen professional work. That is an urgent matter, which should have the Government's attention.
I turn to Class II, Votes 1 and 2, relating to industrial development and selective assistance to industry. Vast sums of money have been expended on assistance to industries that have quietly folded up in the night and stolen away, leaving many thousands of people unemployed. There has been reference to the British Enkalon factory, and in the flurry about that people seem to have forgotten the Campsie factory, in my constituency, which is in the process of closing. One wonders whether the money has been properly spent, and whether the people involved in setting up those factories, the Department officials and the Ministers responsible at the various times, got all their sums right. I do not know, but the Public Accounts Committee had the harshest of things to say about the Courtaulds concept. When the Committee deals with it I believe that it will have even harsher things to say about the Campsie site.
The most modern factory of its type in Europe is now closing down, yet I was told last year that all Campsie needed to survive was a weaker pound and lower interest rates. Despite now having those things, the Courtaulds factory is closing. We are told that the competition that closed it down was from low-cost areas. Then we find that the United States is one source of the competition. I do not think that any of us would describe the United States as a low-cost area, especially when President Reagan has removed the limits that were imposed on the cost of coal, gas and oil. I should like to know why the factory has closed down. To say that I am puzzled by the closure would be the understatement of the year. I wonder whether the Minister is also puzzled. Is he able to give us the source of the imports that have buried not only the Northern Ireland man-made fibres industry but the whole United Kingdom industry?
There is very little industry left in Northern Ireland. I have a couple of factories in my constituency and there may be a few more scattered around, but the whole industrial base built up by the late Brian Faulkner in the 1960s has now vanished. Can the Minister tell us the extent of the loss to the public purse that has arisen and will arise as a result of the closure of the Courtaulds plant at Campsie? Can he give us any indication of how he hopes to replace the 700 jobs that are vanishing there?
I turn now to primary school education in Limavady. It is a constituency problem We have a very severe overcrowding problem in the primary school because of the growth of that town. We have long been promised that a new primary school would be built in Limavady. Plans were drawn. They have been drawn three or four times. The last time that they were drawn they went to the board and from there to the Department, and they were lost in the Department for 12 months or so. The Department then managed to get round to telling the board that the plans must be redrawn. It is curious that it took so long for the decision to be taken. I understand that the plans have now been redrawn and returned to the board. I express the hope that they will not remain there long, and that the school will soon be under way.
This is a peculiar situation, in that the existing primary school, which is to be replaced, is immediately beside the county secondary intermediate school, which is bursting at the seams. The schools, as far as possible, share some facilities, such as the gym and the assembly hall. If we get the new primary school, the problems of the primary schoolchildren and of the intermediate schoolchildren will be immediately resolved, because the secondary school


overflow can move into the primary school, which is very suitable for that purpose. It is not often that a Department in Northern Ireland has the opportunity of getting two for the price of one, but that is the case in Limavady, and the building should not be delayed any longer.
A more serious shadow lies across the other end of the education spectrum in my constituency, as a result of the reports that are being circulated about the New University of Ulster, in Coleraine. There have been two or three reports in The Sunday Times about what the Chilver report will contain concerning that university. There was a recent report in The Irish Times, and I have been contacted by the students in Coleraine. They say that they were in touch with the person who wrote the article for The Irish Times, and that he assured them that he had seen the document from which he quoted, and that his report was true. The report states that Coleraine university is to be downgraded and changed into something that is not a university, and that it will lose its degree-granting status.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that Chilver is a completely independent body. It is all very well to say that the Government cannot comment until the Chilver report is on the Minister's desk. The truth is, however, that these accounts, are having a most damaging effect on staff morale. Doubts have been raised in the minds of well qualified people who would otherwise apply for posts in the university. A young man contacted me to ask whether the university would still be in existence if he applied for a post in which he was interested. There are also the distressing effects on future students who wonder, if they apply for a place, whether the university will still exist when the time comes to take up their places.
If the reports are completely unfounded, hon. Members would be grateful for a ministerial statement indicating that they are unfounded. If no such statement is made, can we draw the conclusion that the reports are true? If the reports are soundly based, I demand that the Government should not accept what Chilver is alleged to say. The university has had a chequered history. It has many enemies. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that some of its enemies sit high up in the Department of Education. It is an institution that I believe can survive and that, perhaps, would have fared much better if earlier efforts to sustain the life of the university had been maintained.
There have been complaints about the size of the student body. A few years ago, many other universities in the United Kingdom had student bodies of a similar size. There have also been some complaints about the poor level of recruitment of students from Great Britain. What can one expect with the present security situation in Northern Ireland? It is foolish to think that people will be lining up to attend a university in Northern Ireland. If, however, the university is closed or downgraded, all those connected with it, or who know anything about it, will have to say that the IRA has had another victory in destroying not perhaps a building but an institution that, in the long term, is more important than any particular building.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the visit—it was a second visit—that he and I paid to the Minister in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland regarding the rundown of the drainage office in Coleraine. I shall not rehearse all that the hon. Gentleman said, except to say that I agree with him. I believe that we

presented an excellent case together with officials and members of the Coleraine council who accompanied us. I believe that our arguments were soundly based.
If the rundown of the drainage office had been based on sensible grounds rather than bureaucratic nonsense, the case, I believe, would have been won by the arguments put forward. I fear, however, that the decision has been made and that it is the wrong decision. This is an old and important office. It was not established by accident. It was set up because of the peculiar drainage difficulties in Northern Ireland. I accept that most of the main drainage schemes have been completed. I do not accept, however, that it is necessary to close the office.
The most telling point that I have heard is the fact that when a new major river drainage scheme is carried out it is necessary to put a resident drainage engineer on the river bank. The absence or presence of a major river drainage scheme has little implication for the work load in the area office which oversees it. Much of the design work is done at headquarters. The case for closing the office is ill-founded and is perhaps seen by bureaucrats in Stormont and Dundonald House as a matter of tidiness. I cannot believe that if the Minister examines the situation and makes his own decision, rather than accepting the decision of civil servants, he will go ahead with the nonsense that is proposed.

Mr. James Kilfedder: In yesterday's debate on the riots in Great Britain, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) intimated, unemployment was stated to be a contributory factor. It follows logically that unemployment must have some effect on the situation in Northern Ireland. Now, perhaps, tribute will be paid to the restraint of the Ulster people, particularly the young people, despite 12 years of terrorism.
Television cameras tend to zoom in on the small number of youths in Republican areas who, usually manipulated and master-minded by the Provisional IRA godfathers, throw stones and petrol and acid bombs at the security forces. I wish that the television cameras would portray the law-abiding young people in Ulster who, despite the terrorism and terrible unemployment, are a credit to any country. I am sorry that Ulster is given a bad name throughout the world. If the news media looked at ordinary, decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland and dealt with how they go about their business, despite the great problems, and concentrated on the manner in which decent people behave, a different conclusion about Ulster would be drawn.
However, the young unemployed in Northern Ireland need help. They need jobs. All the fine phrases about Government action to deal with the increasing number of young people who cannot get a job are virtually meaningless. The Government should be aware—if the Minister will pay attention to what I say instead of talking to his colleague on the Front Bench—of the feelings of hopelessness and despair felt by the 16-year-old sch000lchildren who have no hope of a job.
It is an indictment of the Government that young people leaving school full of hope and idealism can look forward only to the prospect of joining the dole queue. That is what the Government offer the young people of Northern Ireland who are the future of the Province and the best hope for the Province. Unless the Government act


reasonably to meet this grave situation they will be condemned rightly by people in all parts of the Province. This year, 26,000 boys and girls left school. Only 2,000 of them will get a job, or may get a job. About 8,000 will continue in further and higher education. Another 8,000 will join the youth opportunities programme or Enterprise Ulster for short-time employment or training. What is to happen to the remaining 8,000 who have no jobs and who go out every day, idle about, and feel in a state of despair?
When I go about my constituency, young people ask me "Jim, can you help me to get a job?" Perhaps they make a plea for the opportunity to complete an apprenticeship which has been prematurely ended by redundancies. It is no comfort to them for me to say that this is the result of Government policy and that under our democratic system all that I can do is to tell the Minister in the House about the feelings and anxieties of young people. I hope that today the Minister will be able to offer these young people some hope and some action by the Government, because they deserve that.
On the subject of education, it is sad to reflect on the failure of successive Governments to do anything positive and effective about Ulster's divided community. From time to time they have castigated the Ulster people about religious division and have sought to impose impractical political solutions on the Province. But Governments in turn have been too cowardly to bring an end to religious apartheid in education at the taxpayers' expense. I mentioned that matter as recently as yesterday, at Question Time.
The present Government pride themselves on taking tough and unpopular decisions about public expenditure cuts. But they take the taxpayers' money to maintain two systems of education in Northern Ireland. At a time of great need and heartrending unemployment, that waste is bad enough, but it is well-nigh criminal that millions of pounds of taxpayers' money are being used to enable the Roman Catholic Church, in particular, to trap young people into a mental ghetto. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the Department of Education is not a Member of this House. That is sad, because we cannot argue these matters to his face in this Chamber. From what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, it is very difficult to put matters to his face anywhere else. But we must put our arguments here, so I hope that the Minister's colleagues will express to him as forcefully as possible our feelings about education, as expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North and others.
The only places of learning in Northern Ireland where the young of Ulster can meet irrespective of religious or cultural differences are the two universities and the technical colleges. With only a few exceptions, Protestant and Roman Catholic children must go to separate primary and secondary schools. and even to separate youth classes.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps he will make it clear that we are talking not about Roman Catholic schools in Ulster and Protestant schools in Ulster but about Roman Catholic schools and State schools. The State schools are not synonymous with Protestant schools, because in the State schools there is no attempt to impose a religious ethos on those who attend

them. I simply ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify that matter, because I have much sympathy with what he is saying and that point would strengthen his argument.

Mr. Kilfedder: I have put that matter before the House previously. The reality of the present situation is that Protestants and relatively few Roman Catholics go to State schools, and the vast majority of Roman Catholics go to Church schools, in which children from a very young age are moulded and set almost permanently in that mould, and that is very sad. Taxpayers' money should not be used to put young people into schools at which they cannot meet and play with boys and girls of another religion and learn together.
But the matter does not stop at the schools, because we have separate teacher training colleges for Roman Catholics and Protestants. The Protestant college is the State college at Stranmillis. In effect, it is Protestant. Worst of all was the demand by the Roman Catholic Church that even nursery schools must be divided on sectarian lines. Sadly, the Government of the day surrendered.
The Government are acting unfairly in the matter of financial support. Ulster's further education has suffered proportionately greater cuts in expenditure than its primary and secondary schools. How can the Government justify cutting further education programmes at a time of high unemployment in Northern Ireland? Ulster has the same rate of youth unemployment as the worst areas in Britain, and no local education authority in England with similar youth unemployment has made such severe cuts as have been made by the five education boards in Northern Ireland. I want the Government to justify from the Dispatch Box today that unfair treatment of our young people in the matter of education.
At a time of unprecedented and savage unemployment, young people should be encouraged to proceed from school to places of further education rather than to break their hearts and spirits in the dole queue. Northern Ireland suffers gravely from lack of raw materials, but in our young people we have the best hope for the future. I therefore call on the Government to invest in them by providing more money for grants and making sure that teachers who have lost a job because of Government expenditure cuts are used to educate our young people.
The Chilver committee was due to report in June. When does the Minister expect to receive that report?
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that an ugly rumour was circulating that the New University of Ulster is to be reduced in status to a kind of non-university institution. I do not agree with those who allege that the university, with almost 1,500 students, including about 200 postgraduate students, is not a viable university. The 18-plus age group in Northern Ireland will continue to increase for a number of years. The special contribution which the university has made to university life in Northern Ireland is in bringing together students from all denominations in the education centre. I see the education centre at the new university as being the main centre in the training of Ulster's teachers of the future.
This is a golden opportunity for the Government to abandon the old sectarian teacher training colleges—St. Mary's, St. Joseph's and Stranmillis—and to start afresh in a university setting with a completely new concept of teacher training. All teachers of the future will have to have a university degree. Where better to obtain their


qualifications than in a residential university far removed from the sites and the historical and theological associations of the three teacher-training colleges that I have mentioned?
Ulster should be proud of its two universities and we should do all in our power to help them. The Province is at a disadvantage in not having a devolved Parliament. A devolved Government in Northern Ireland would fight to maintain the new university and its status. I do not believe that the present Government have their heart in the New university. They do not seem all that interested in young people, employment and education. They can prove their interest by saving the new university. We in Northern Ireland should maintain the New university as well as Queen's university in Belfast.
The Government could save money by getting rid of the interference of the Northern Ireland Department of Education in the matter of university grants. There should be no need for that extra layer of administration between the University Grants Committee and the universities. It makes no sense. The two Northern Ireland universities should be regarded in the same way as British universities and should receive their grants directly from the UGC.
At present, the universities receive their money from the Northern Ireland Department of Education, which is 11 weeks behind the UGC in informing Queen's university and the new university of their current and capital grants. That delay is unnecessary and unacceptable. It is not to the universities' advantage to have two masters, and I urge the Government to consider doing away with the intermediate stage.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Gentleman will realise that the funds given to the two universities in Northern Ireland are made available by the Department on the recommendation of the UGC.

Mr. Kilfedder: But, as I pointed out, there is a delay of 11 weeks and there is no point in that delay. The iniversities suffer because they cannot make their plans as early as other universities. I cannot understand the function performed by the Northern Ireland Department of Education. It receives a statement from the UGC and eventually—11 weeks late this year—it informs the two universities what grants will be available to them.
I wish to refer finally to the bureacracy of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Bureaucracy is the bane of the lives of Ulster people, and it is seen at its worst in housing in the Province. We have the lowest standards of public sector housing in the United Kingdom, and some people have been waiting desperately for a home for many years.
Ulster has one all-powerful, omniscient housing organisation—the Housing Executive. It is failing to build enough houses for those who desperately need them and it is failing to maintain existing properties at an acceptable standard. Tenants find it difficult to get repairs carried out. I mentioned that in the recent debate on Northern Ireland housing, so I shall not go into detail, but it is a serious matter and something must be done about it.
I believe that the answer is to get rid of the Housing Executive. With more than 3,500 employees, it is top-heavy. Like so many other organisations in Ulster, it owes no allegiance to any elected, representative body and it is not subject to proper and regular scrutiny by democratically elected representatives. The executive is appointed by

the Minister and does his bidding. It increases rents when he says they should be increased, even though those increases are unfair.
The Housing Council, which is meant to watch over the working of the executive, is a useless, toothless body, superimposed on the executive to deceive people into believing that there is some sort of democratic control by elected representatives. The council may be the basis for the proposed advisory council that the Secretary of State has foolishly put forward as a constitutional move. It will have no powers, and is a dangerous sham. I hope that people will look at it carefully.
Millions of pounds were lost by the Housing Executive on contrasts given to IRA-dominated firms. The quality, of the finish of many houses, including some in my constituency, is pathetic and appalling. Windows rot, doors twist, spouting leaks and chimneys do not draw, so that some tenants are smoked out of their homes. Maintenance contractors carry out repairs without any check being made on the finished job in far too many cases.
Judging by the work that many maintenance contractors claim to have carried out, I get the impression that they are using the Housing Executive as a quick way to a fortune. Too often a couple of workmen with a ladder turn up to repair a roof, for example, after the tenant has waited for months. They spend a day doing a botched-up job and therefore have to return three or four times before doing a proper job. All the time, the rain is coming through the roof and the tenant is suffering.
I heard of a recent case of a tenant who had been complaining for years about various defects in his house. After I sent a letter to the chief executive of the Housing Executive, workmen went to the house to replace the fireplace. The tenant had never asked to have his fireplace replaced. No doubt that cost a lot of money—taxpayers' money—and when I wrote another letter of complaint to the Housing Executive I received a reply saying that men had been sent to look at the fireplace and it was hoped that all would go well. That tenant did not want anything done to his fireplace. He wanted action to remedy the defects in his home. If that example is being repeated throughout the Province, thousands of pounds are being wasted and tenants are suffering because correct repairs are not being carried out.
The Housing Executive has always been a remote organisation for most tenants. People are frightened by its bureaucratic face and the executive gives the impression that it is dispensing charity to those who apply for tenancies. At the rents that people have to pay the tenancies cannot be regarded as charity. According to the Government, they pay economic rents.
I know from my constituency work that the district managers are excellent. They are fair, sympathetic and understanding, and many of their support staff do a good job in trying and difficult circumstances. But the executive fails, because it is top-heavy at headquarters. It is not looking after the interests of its tenants. More than likely, it is pushing paper round its headquarters.
The executive has moved into grandiose headquarters, purpose-built for it, in Adelaide Street, Belfast. Has the Minister been told the total cost? What are the economics of the move into the new headquarters? Who was responsible for the executive standard of the furnishings?

Mr. Peter Robinson: What about the Town 'n' Country, in Newtownards?

Mr. Kilfedder: That is not a club that tenants of the executive go to for recreational purposes. It is a newly-built, empty hotel that was taken over by the executive as a regional headquarters. It is rumoured that the rent is enormous. I have been trying to find out from the Minister what it is, so far without success. I have telephoned the private office of the Department of the Environment, but I have received no answer. I have received no answer to my questions about the cost of the wall that may be put up to screen those looking for homes from people who use another part of the hotel that is to be operated as a commercial enterprise.
Is the rent £30,000, £40,000 or what? The people—certainly those who have been asked to pay a hefty increase in rent—are entitled to know what they are paying towards splendid offices for officials whose jobs are perhaps not necessary. Now the rumour is that that large hotel is not large enough for the executive's regional office, and that the executive will have to add to its accommodation. There is no need for that Rolls-Royce accommodation. The executive exists to serve its tenants or prospective tenants, and the organisation and offices should be located for the convenience of customers and operated for the benefit of tenants and not for the enhancement of the organisation's status.
All of the vast increase in the numbers of persons involved and the expensive office accommodation arises from a report by the Civil Service Department, which recommended that between the area manager and the board there should be inserted a regional controller, with his own empire and support staff. That decision has resulted in the present administrative octopus, with a tiny brain and many grasping arms. It was an administrative disaster, and it should be reversed.
The proper place for housing is in the care of the democratically elected councils. The executive costs about £143 million a year. If housing were transferred to the elected councils the result would be more and better homes for the people at lower cost than that of the present bloated bureaucracy.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that sometimes Members on the Opposition side of the House are inclined to feel that they are being repetitious in debates on Northern Ireland, particularly when a number of debates immediately follow one another. There is some validity in that, but it is not necessary to warn my right hon. Friend that if we began to feel embarrassment about putting ideas to the Government it would be to the Government's advantage.
We should never hesitate to put on record at each and every opportunity the fact that since May 1979 this Government have effectively doubled unemployment in Northern Ireland. We know, from statements and from the figures that we obtained only last week, that unemployment is increasing day by day, and week by week. I make no apology for saying as often and loudly as I can that it is an absolute disgrace that the Government should have allowed unemployment in Northern Ireland so to escalate.
The Government have an unenviable record in that they have presided over the closing down of many industries in

Northern Ireland that were regarded as the linchpin of our economy. The whole man-made fibre industry has gone since this Government were elected. Grundig has gone. All the little factories that employed 200, 300, 20 or 30 people have gone within a period of 27 months under the aegis of this Government. No apology is needed when we who represent Northern Ireland constituencies appeal, request or demand that the Government change their attitude. Unemployment has increased in the constituency of every Northern Ireland Member since the advent of this Government.
Yesterday afternoon I was standing behind Mr. Speaker's Chair when I heard the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the Opposition Benches, shouting above the natural discontent that was being voiced from these Benches, say that one man's rise in wages is another man's unemployment or redundancy. I accept that we cannot totally isolate the Northern Ireland economy from the rest of the United Kingdom, but will someone tell me—again I am being repetitious, because I said it in the last debate, in the debate before that, and in the debate before that, and I shall say it in the next debate—which section of the workers in Northern Ireland have been given such an increase that their wages are so high that they have resulted in redundancies in the Six Counties? I repeat, what section of the industrial work force has had such outlandish increases in pay that they have led to all the redundancies in Northern Ireland?
We are always told by the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues that if a work force can produce something which is saleable or usable, that work force is entitled to continue to exist. As I said in last month's debate, and as I shall say in the next debate, the whole construction industry in Northern Ireland is virtually unemployed at present because of the cutbacks in Government public expenditure. What the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said about the Housing Executive was right. I realise that there are people who oppose the Housing Executive, originally for political reasons. I oppose the Housing Executive purely because of its ineffectiveness. Parkinson's Law seems to apply to the staff and officers of that executive. It is opening offices all over Northern Ireland and putting in telephone extensions. Incidentally, one can never get through to the Housing Executive. The administrative staff is increasing day by day and hour by hour, but no houses are being built.
We had a debate recently in the Northern Ireland Committee on the working of the Housing Executive. There we produced figures to show that this year—1981–82—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will produce 2,500 houses, and it will produce 1,000 of those houses only if it is able to sell to the tenants who at present occupy 1,000 houses that they are prepared to sell. There is a massive increase in the administrative staff, yet no houses are being built.
I tell the Government again that there are thousands of unemployed in the construction industry in Northern Ireland. They comprise labourers, bricklayers, plumbers and fitters. All their skills could be used to build houses. In the debate to which I referred the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) seemed to question the figures that I gave, but I maintain that Northern Ireland is, and has been for a considerable time, the worst-housed region not only in the United Kingdom but in Western Europe. Those figures cannot be contradicted, and I have publication after publication to prove them.
If there is such high unemployment in the construction industry, could not those who are unemployed be put usefully to work building houses which are so badly needed to house those in Northern Ireland who, as the hon. Member for Down, North said, have been waiting for years, some for almost a decade, to get houses from a public authority?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman compares the housing record of Northern Ireland with that in other parts of Europe. I received a written answer to a parliamentary question of mine setting out a number of figures. Has the hon. Gentleman studied those figures? If so, he may wish to revise what he has just said.

Mr. Fitt: I advise the hon. Member for Epping Forest to read a report published by Shelter, Northern Ireland, which had its first conference in Northern Ireland three or four weeks ago. I believe the facts published in that document to be undeniable.

Mr. J. Bradford: Unreliable.

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman must take his choice. I am prepared to accept the figures published by Shelter, Northern Ireland, because I do not believe that such an organisation would irresponsibly collate figures for which there was no basis.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman study the figures provided by Her Majesty's Government before he repeats his assertion?

Mr. Fitt: I have studied a great many figures provided by Her Majesty's Government over a number of years, and I have not always found them to be the most reliable statistics. Again, "You pays your money and you takes your choice." There are figures issued by a succession of Governments which have not always been the most reliable.
This Appropriation order puts into legislation the standard of living in Northern Ireland. It is about the amount of money available and how it is spent by the different agencies, Ministries and Departments in Northern Ireland. This is a very important debate, therefore, and right hon. and hon. Members are totally justified in taking a little time to put on record how the order will affect their constituents.
I shall go through the order's contents chronologically. Class IV, Vote 1, deals with the Department of the Environment and the money made available for roads throughout Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield will have some recollection that during the period in office of his Administration a great deal of disquiet was voiced in Northern Ireland by the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union about the Government giving licences to private hire operators who were not paying fair and just wages to their employees. That is still happening. The Government are paying private bus operators to transport children to and from school, and they are not paying the fair wage that is recognised by the trade union movement.
Recently I met a deputation of the trade unionists involved. They advised me that not only were the operators paying lower wages than the accepted level but that they were employing people to drive their buses whose physical condition should not have permitted them to do

so, bearing in mind that the vehicles were used to transport schoolchildren. It is happening in County Antrim, County Fermanagh and County Armagh.
The Minister must be aware of the circumstances but, if necessary, I shall have no hesitation in leading a deputation to him from the union to put before him the names of the firms concerned. I do not believe that the Government should try to cut public expenditure by giving licences to private operators who pay less than the legitimate wage and, more important, who are not all that careful about those whom they employ. The Government should make certain that the drivers of these school buses have all their physical faculties.
Class IX deals with health and social services. I have always taken an interest in that subject. Many cuts have been made in that Department. Hon. Members will remember the mini-Budget last year and the reallocation of funds that caused chaos in Northern Ireland. As a result of that reallocation of resources, schoolteachers, school cleaners, people who served school meals, school window cleaners and ambulance drivers became unemployed. Drivers who transported disabled people from their homes to treatment centres became unemployed. Every facet of life in Northern Ireland was affected by the cuts. We are still suffering from the effects.
In the last few weeks I have received letters and telephone calls from young girls who are anxious and eager to take up nursing. I refer particularly to the Royal Victoria hospital. The girls have had their interviews and physical examinations. They were told that they would be able to take up their nursing careers at the end of July. They then received a note from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board which said "We are very sorry, but because of Government cuts we shall not be able to employ you as nurses."
The young girls are bitterly disappointed. I have spoken to them and to their parents. They were promised that they would be able to take up their chosen profession at the Royal Victoria hospital. That hospital has rendered signal service throughout the community in the past terrible 12 years. Not only are the young girls bitterly disappointed, but an inferior service is now provided by that hospital. It has to work with fewer nurses. The hospital is one of the most famous in the United Kingdom. It has rendered great service not only to the people of Belfast but to the whole of medical science because of what it has had to do in the last 10 or 12 years.
The same is happening at the Purdysburn hospital and in the mental hospitals. I have spoken to the COHSE trade union leader. The ratio of nurses to patients is far lower than that which is normally accepted. The same applies to Downpatrick hospital. The Government's policies are leading to a fall in the standard of provision in our ordinary hospitals and mental institutions.

Mr. John Patten: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the Royal Victoria hospital and nursing ratios at Purdysburn, I must tell him that the financial allocation per bed at the Royal Victoria hospital is the third highest in the United Kingdom. Only two teaching hospitals in London are higher. The Government have in that way rightly recognised the extraordinary and excellent contribution that the RVH has made to medicine, not only in Ulster but in the whole of the United Kingdom. The staffing ratios in Purdysburn hospital do not fall below the national average.

Mr. Fitt: "You pays your money and you takes your choice." I am prepared to listen to the trade union leader. He is dedicated to his profession, to his trade union and to the welfare of the patients being cared for by his trade union members.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in the case of Downpatrick, some patients who should not be in closed units are in them because there is not the staff to look after them?

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman should make further inquiries. He will discover that I am not exaggerating. There is a great deal of discontent.
I wish to raise a petty matter. Within the past four or five months I attended the Mater hospital in Belfast, not far from my home. I was approached by one of the sisters. She asked me in a rather embarrassed fashion to look at the corridor. It was in an appalling condition and needed painting. Because the hospital was not in my constituency, I did not want to take a case belonging to another hon. Member. However, the hospital is close to where I live, and I know the people involved. The hospital made representations to the Eastern health board but was told that because of Government cuts the corridor could not be painted. How petty can the Government be? A dilapidated corridor in a hospital creates a certain impression for people visiting their relatives. Its repainting should be permitted, irrespective of Government cuts.
I received a letter from a teacher at St. John the Baptist school, Andersonstown. In 1973 the Northern Ireland Department of Education agreed to provide a nursery school for younger children. In 1980 the school was told that there had been a reallocation of funds and the Department did not think it necessary to provide a nursery school. It said that it would provide one at some other time. The teachers at the school recognised that there had been cuts and that the nursery could not be built—even though the Department had agreed that it was necessary—and said that one of their teachers would teach the nursery pupils.
There should have been 35 young boys entering the nursery school in September. One teacher was to be given the job of looking after them. However, because of the reallocation of funds—nothing to do with what we heard earlier about fewer children attending schools—the principal of the school was told that the young boys could not be accommodated in September but would have to wait until next September because no money was available to pay the teacher. That teacher is signing on the unemployment register. There has been a cutback in almost every facet of education. Teachers are finding it difficult to obtain jobs. The youngsters who should have been admitted to the nursery school are left to roam the streets for another year. That is an example of the small issues that have an everyday effect on the people living in Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to go into the closure of the British Enkalon factory in any great detail, but many jobs will be lost. When those jobs go we shall not get them back again. We have said time after time that the Government should do their damnedest to keep the existing jobs in Northern Ireland. There is little point in trying to attract new investment if it is from sources that have no experience of Northern Ireland and whose attitudes are conditioned by what they see and hear about the Province on television.

British Enkalon is already in Northern Ireland. Its management and staff know the conditions. They know where the troubles are happening, are liable to happen, and where they do not happen.
Those men are taking that knowledge with them. They will not stay in Antrim. They will have to move somewhere else in the United Kingdom to try to find jobs. All those skills which were built up, technical and managerial, are lost to Northern Ireland. We shall then read that the Minister, as happened with his predecessor, is on a plane to Chicago, Illinois, San Fransisco, Bremen, Paris or somewhere else and is trying to attract a new industry to Northern Ireland. We read in our newspapers every day that there is a world recession. Other countries have unemployment problems as well and their people are on the dole. If they can keep industries in their countries they will not be all that generous and take great compassion on people in Northern Ireland. They will not let industry come from their shores to Northern Ireland.
It behoves the Government to keep as many jobs as possible in Northern Ireland. That is why I believe that it is foolish to have any cutbacks in Enterprise Ulster or LEDU in Northern Ireland. Those are home-based projects, run by men born and bred in Northern Ireland, who know exactly what is necessary at any given time. The Minister should tell us what section of industry has demanded such high wages that they have led to unemployment in other sectors of the Northern Ireland economy.
As usual, this debate is taking place on a Friday. There are not many hon. Members here from other parts of the United Kingdom. They are not terribly interested in what is happening in Northern Ireland. I know that Northern Ireland is regarded by many hon. Members as a liability in many ways. It might be thought that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are lucky to have a whole day to themselves and to talk for as long as they like, with no time limit. That is not the right way to look at such debates. I know that the whole economy in the United Kingdom is in recession, but I also know that the measures that are being taken by the Government are exacerbating unemployment in the United Kingdom.
The recent civil disturbances which we have had here and in other parts of the United Kingdom are a symptom of the great frustration that has been felt by young people who do not have the prospect of a job to go to in the foreseeable future. We have had that in Northern Ireland over a number of years. I cannot see that this Government's measures, if they are to take any measures will help. There is talk of £40 million to set up new factories, which might give a temporary respite to some people in the construction industry who will build the factories. But who will occupy them? The only organisation that can profitably occupy such industrial establishments is the Government. The Government must recognise that about 32 per cent. of the industrial work force in Northern Ireland is employed by the Government, which is a high percentage. If, over a period, the Government decide that they will have cutbacks in public expenditure in all the areas that I have mentioned—health, social services and the Housing Executive, for example—and if they allow other industries in Northern Ireland to die, the position can only become worse.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made some predictions yesterday. I disagree with the way that he expressed them. However, unemployment has


contributed to the troubles in Northern Ireland. With an ever-increasing number of people becoming unemployed, we can expect the trouble to get worse. I warn the Government of that. I appeal to them on behalf of my constituents to take whatever steps they can in the shortest possible time to tackle the terrible spectre of unemployment.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am my party's housing spokesman, so I usually find myself on these occasions dealing mainly with housing, but we recently had a comprehensive debate on housing in the Northern Ireland Committee which gave us an opportunity to air our views on the subject, although the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) still wished to throw out one or two matters.
Ministers have been criticised for not readily being prepared to meet deputations, but the Environment Minister should not be included. He is always willing to meet deputations on planning and housing matters. However, I cannot include his noble Friend in that remark. He has been unwilling to meet deputations.
The hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and Down, North joined in a common theme on unemployment which was first mentioned by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It would be wrong for any Northern Ireland Member to participate in the debate without drawing attention to our soaring unemployment. Two years ago we should have laughed in disbelief at the fact that the number of unemployed in 1981 would be over 100,000, but the prospect is that the situation could get even worse. Indeed, other factors may mean that the correct number is 20,000 to 25,000 higher than the official figure. In those circumstances, it ill-becomes hon. Members and people outside the House to run around like the Mafia hitmen, groundlessly criticising projects such as De Lorean and the Belfast shipyard. I was no fan of De Lorean. The siting of the factory was not appropriate, although an effort has been made to make the entrance more suitable. However, it is right to give it every possible support and encouragement, first, because of unemployment and, secondly, because of the investment that has already been made. There has been a vast investment in the company, and it would be churlish to criticise the firm in a way that would be detrimental to its prospects.
Closer to home is Harland and Wolff. It is unfortunate that hon. Members who have criticised the company are not here. Perhaps they will have returned to the Chamber before I resume my seat.
Before criticising Harland and Wolff in particular, it is necessary to consider world shipbuilding conditions in general. It would be unjust to criticise one company if every other shipyard in the world was suffering in the same way. Harland and Wolff is suffering from the dearth of shipbuilding orders caused by the world slump. The Belfast yards have been particularly hard hit because the market for which their facilities were designed—tankers and bulk carriers, but especially the former—has been the hardest hit of all. About 600 tankers are still reckoned to be laid up throughout the world, so it will be some time before there is a resurgence of orders for tankers. I shall deal later with the market for bulk carriers.
Harland and Wolff is not alone in making losses. British Shipbuilders made considerable losses despite the fact that many of its larger constituent parts have the

advantage of naval construction orders. The Minister will recall that on many occasions I and other hon. Members have pressed for naval contracts to be given to Harland and Wolff, if only in the repair section, as it has shown that it can deal very successfully with that kind of order. Once again, therefore, I press upon the Minister the necessity for naval construction orders, which by their very nature are always regarded as profitable. The resulting profits offset to some extent losses on merchant ship construction. It can therefore be argued that the losses made by British Shipbuilders are not a true comparison because Harland and Wolff does not receive naval orders at all.
Other parts of the world show a similar pattern of heavy losses in shipbuilding. In Japan, which is often regarded as the world's most efficient shipbuilding nation, a number of shipyards are closing because of the depression in the world market. Many of the larger Japanese shipbuilding companies are part of even larger enterprises whose profits in other spheres of operation, like those on British naval orders, may be offset against losses on merchant ship construction. It was recently estimated that to gain a foreign order certain Japanese yards had to offer ships at a price 40 per cent. below the cost of production.
That situation is reflected in the financial results of the top 10 Japanese companies for the years 1978 and 1979, which recorded total losses of 391 billion yen. A single Japanese firm, IHI, in 1978 suffered a loss—its first loss since 1974—of 10 billion yen. In 1979, the company cut the salaries of all employees by 5 per cent., suspended all pay increases, reduced the salaries of managers by 5 per cent. to 15 per cent. and made drastic cuts in the labour force. Another Japanese company, Mitsui, also recorded its first loss, and one of its main yards switched from shipbuilding to the manufacture of containers and steel products. A third Japanese company, Sasebo, in 1978 recorded a loss of 2·1 billion yen. In the first half of 1979, that loss increased to 9·7 billion yen. That company, too, instituted cuts in wages and salaries and reduced its work force. Yet Japan is supposed to be the leader in world shipbuilding.
To single out one British shipyard is therefore patently unfair. Moreover, in relation to Harland and Wolff, we must appreciate that it is not always possible to quantify the effect of shipbuilding problems because the knock-on effect may last long after the original problem has been solved. Like the nail that was lost in the shoe of the horse, a seemingly minor problem may prove very costly indeed. I shall therefore detail some items which can easily be accepted as major problems for Harland and Wolff and which should be taken into consideration to put the whole matter into perspective.
First, I refer to the insulation problem on the Shell LPG ships. When the order for those ships was taken, a specific method of insulating the containment tanks was agreed between Harland and Wolff and the owners. Because the ships were intended ultimately for use between the United Kingdom and the United States, the design had to be approved by the United States coastguard service. The original insulation system was not approved. A second insulation system was then adopted, but the sub-contractors appointed to carry out the insulation work were unable to meet the rigorous specification requirements. The second method had therefore to be abandoned. Fortunately, a third system was discovered and adopted, and this, once put into operation, enabled work on the ships to proceed steadily.
It should be pointed out, however, that each insulation system has required changes in ship design and production methods, all of which add to the ultimate cost of production and the length of time needed for the completion of the ship. As has been indicated, delays in the completion of the LPG ships have knock-on effects. For instance, with the steady rise in the cost of labour and materials, every delay brings the construction of the ship into a more expensive period. Harland and Wolff is, however, happy that the new insulation system, which has received approval, will prove effective in operation.
The second matter that has to be taken into consideration is the construction of ferry vessels. The shipyard is ideally suited for the construction of large ships. Although the company has built ferries in the past, they have not been built with the present facilities. The ferries have therefore been built using facilities not designed for small ships. Furthermore, the labour balance—that is, the ratio of hull construction men as against outfitting trades—varies considerably with the type of ship under construction. The yard had to recruit many more outfit tradesmen in order to complete the construction of the ferries. Anyone in industry will know that there is always a learning curve with new employees and that they must learn to adapt their skills to the environment of shipbuilding.
The record of Harland and Wolff in the construction of ferries has been steadily improving, and construction of the last vessel, which is to be delivered at the end of this month, has proceeded far more smoothly than that of the first three ships. This improvement has been achieved despite a serious hold-up caused by no fault of Harland and Wolff. One of the two main engines in the vessel blew up during its test running in Manchester, and because of this it was impossible for Harland and Wolff to install the engine before the launch of the vessel. When the engine was delivered to Belfast nearly a year after the original delivery date, a hole had to be cut in the side of the vessel to permit the entry of the engine. Obviously the fitting out of the engine room could not be completed until this time-consuming and costly replacement had been made. There have been other supply problems, not necessarily so dramatic but none the less infuriating, with other bought-in components.
The third matter to be taken into consideration is steel supply. During the construction of the British Rail ferries the yard received a number of faulty plates of steel. In many instances the faults were not discovered until the steel had gone through a number of fabrication processes. Harland and Wolff is still receiving a number of faulty plates. In the case of the new Foyle bridge—for which Harland and Wolff is manufacturing the steel work—the rate of rejection of plates has been running as high as 25 per cent., and that is bound to hold back the production rates.
I have listed three major problem areas. Although there have been others upon which I have not gone into detail, great criticism has been levelled at Harland and Wolff, particularly by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who recently made a scathing attack on the company and on the Government's proposal to continue with financial assistance for Harland and Wolff. During the course of his attack he claimed that Harland and

Wolff had received £300 million, and that it could not build ships to specification or on time, or at a price that the customer was prepared to pay.
Taking these points in order, reference to the three major items that I outlined will indicate why it has taken longer tko build LPG ships and parts than had been originally planned. There have, of course, been other factors, but they have been of a minor nature.
The charge made about the Belfast yard's inability to build ships to specification cannot be substantiated. In only one instance—that of two VLCCs for the Coastal States Gas Corporation—has the yard's quality been questioned. Those who have followed the progress of that case will know that Harland and Wolff contested the company's complaints and the matter went to arbitration. In all the matters with which the arbitration panel dealt before the proceedings ended, the panel found in favour of Harland and Wolff. It is worthy of note that the Coastal States Gas Corporation accepted the ships without any modification and has been operating them successfully and without complaint to Harland and Wolff since acceptance.
Harland and Wolff has received many congratulations on the quality of the three Sealink ferries already delivered. It is known that the second ship delivered has been able to operate on English Channel routes in weather conditions that have stopped other vessels on the same route. It is also worthy of note that, to my knowledge and also to the knowledge of Harland and Wolff, despite the large number of ships that have been laid up, no Harland and Wolff ship has been taken out of service. Harland and Wolff has evidence that the "Ravenscraig", operated by the Ropner company on behalf of British Steel, has a better performance than ships of comparable size operated by competitors in a similar service.
The hon. Member for Knutsford alleged that Harland and Wolff had received to date £300 million in Government assistance. This, again, is incorrect. The amount of aid given to Harland and Wolff from 1966 to the end of March 1981 amounted to £219 million. Of this total, however, £59 million has been in the form of industrial grants that are available to industry generally. The amount of special funds allocated to Harland and Wolff over the past 15 years is £160 million, not £300 million.
It would be wrong of me to conclude without looking to the future. In the past month or so, the competitive position of British Shipbuilders has been altered radically by the change in the value of the £ sterling. Products have been made more attractive to foreign buyers. It is worth recording that the selling price of British ships has remained virtually unchanged, largely because of the pressure of foreign competition, since 1973. Surely there are few other industries that have had to absorb the cost of inflation for so long without commensurate changes in the selling price of goods.
There is unlikely to be a quick re-emergence of the oil tanker market, but with the second of the preferred type of vessel mentioned earlier—the bulk carrier—there are distinct signs that the market will improve. Of particular interest is the steady increase in the movement of coal throughout the world. Harland and Wolff has, because of comprehensive studies of the market, been able to offer shipowners vessels ideally suited to this market. Harland and Wolff's market predictions on the scope of the market and the size of vessel required have to date been proved correct. These predictions show that a considerable


number of new bulk carriers will be required by coal traders. Harland and Wolff is making strenuous efforts to capture a share of the market.
Unsubstantiated allegations by the hon. Member for Knutsford and others do little to enhance the yard's reputation throughout the world and are, in the end, damaging and counter-productive. It is encouragement that the Belfast shipyard needs rather than irresponsible sniping.
Class IX deals with the Department of Health. I have to make a serious allegation against the Department and certain people attached to it. The hon. Member for Down, North, in an intervention, mentioned the Belfast city hospital building contract. He referred to what he said was £42 million—I think it is considerably more and that it is at least £46 million, and perhaps well over £50 million—involved in the cost of the project. It was planned, I believe, to cost about £7 million or £8 million. One can therefore see why the Public Accounts Committee became interested in the expenditure.
Some factors have been brought to my attention, in the first place, by post and anonymously. I set out to confirm the facts given to me. Having confirmed them, I think that it is right that I should put them before the Minister and ask not only for his comments but for urgent attention to be given to the matter. It appears that the claim made that the increase in money was going, in some degree, to encourage workers to stay on the site despite terrorist activity has not been substantiated by the men themselves. No less a person than W. J. Duffy, the Northern Ireland branch secretary of the National Union of Sheet Metal Workers, Coppersmiths, Heating and Domestic Engineers, wrote in the News Letter Belfast on 3 July:
no members of my union, who have been employed on the site since the beginning of the contract, have ever received any such payments.
That is a clear statement. It admits of no doubt or confusion.
The allegations made to me suggest that the money is going to a different destination. From the sub-contractors on the site my inquiries inform me that Haden Young has received no financial benefit in this way, nor have Air Flow, Otis Electric, Nelson Insulation. Satchwell and Apuana (Floors); and Crown House has received only four hours a week time-keeping bonus. The only people who seem to have benefited have been the main contractors. One is drawn to ask why the danger of terrorist activity applies only to the main contractors and not to sub-contractors.
The allegation made to me is that the Government, albeit indirectly, have been paying racketeers—the Irish Republican Army and perhaps one other paramilitary group. These organisations have been paid money to keep away from the site. The Minister must address himself to this matter. He must either confirm it today or investigate it fully. The Public Accounts Committee should also address itself to this matter. In Northern Ireland this has been widely rumoured for some time, but there is considerable support from people on the site for this view. Given that, the. Minister must make a full inquiry before he makes any denial.

Mr. John Patten: I should be happy to receive any substantiated evidence of the hon. Gentleman's allegation.

Mr. Robinson: It is simple to trigger the Minister's inquisitiveness. If the subcontractors have not been getting

the money which it is alleged has been paid, who has been getting it? The Minister must have a good look at the accounts to see where the money has been going. An official of the union said that his men were not getting the money. Sub-contractors say that they are not getting it. Yet the money has been paid out. This is nothing short of a scandal. It must be examined closely by the Minister and his Department.
Finally, under Class XI, Vote 1, for the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly—£104,000—once more we are being asked to vote a substantial sum to maintain what is effectively a political vacuum in Northern Ireland. The foot-dragging exercise of the Government in their attempts to get meaningful devolution in Northern Ireland is deplorable. The Government must come to terms with this matter. In effect, we are being asked to pay £104,000 as a donation to the shrine of past and present Government failures to get devolution.
The Minister and the Secretary of State must face the fact that the proposed Northern Ireland advisory council falls far short of what Northern Ireland representatives want and of what Northern Ireland needs. To have a non-elected talking shop is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. I ask the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, to consider giving Northern Ireland real devolution. Will he not, at last, honour the ballot box and let the people of Northern Ireland decide the form of devolved government that they want for the Province?
As a start, and in good faith, will the Secretary of Slate tell the House that he will call off the abortive and ill-fated Dublin talks? I assume that the money that is being voted for the Civil Service is to pay in some part for the running backwards and forwards to the joint studies, so I assume that it is permissible to speak on that subject. I hope that the insult of the Dublin Government in going to the United States behind the teacher's back and telling the American Government to put pressure on Britain will bring the Secretary of State to his senses and make him realise that the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom have no friends in Dublin.
Until the consultation with the Dublin Government is ended, there will be no prospect of Northern Ireland politicians being able to enter constructively into the process of devolved government, and the Votes for the Northern Ireland Assembly will for ever remain a monument to the Government's failure.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I wish to refer first to Class II, which deals with expenditure by the Department of Commerce. I shall not intrude into the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who will deal with the important subject of the likely future of British Enkalon, but I wish to refer to the use of money for sustaining jobs in the Province.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who, as usual, impressed the House with his sincerity and dedication in trying to engender new hope for employment prospects in the Province. I hope that he will not take my comment amiss if I say that I accept that there are times when the Government must seriously consider sustaining jobs in non-profit-making businesses, when the cost of doing so is no greater than the cost that would be incurred by paying unemployment benefits. But the Government cannot keep


paying out large sums that will reduce their capacity to produce long-term, worthwhile, productive jobs, particularly in microchip techology.
The Government have to look at the arithmetic involved in the British Enkalon case. If it will cost, say, £6½ million to provide the dole money that would be required if workers lost their jobs, and the jobs could be retained for a sum not much in excess of that, the Government have a responsibility to agree that it is moral and helpful to keep the business in being.
However, I should hate to give the impression in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom that there is an endless supply of resources. If that impression became prevalent it would reduce the commitment of workers and management in the public sector to get on with providing competitive operations.
There is an obvious role for the Government in sustaining jobs when the cost of doing so is not much in excess of the cost of paying unemployment and related benefits. However, there must be a balance and we must pay our way at the end of the day. Industry and workers in Northern Ireland are prepared to face that reality as much as workers in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I come now to my second point under this Class. I believe that we are on the verge of yet another Industrial Revolution. We are moving into a completely new era in industry, and only the most obscurantist fool will not accept that this will involve the complete rationalisation of the work force, management, and so on. Happily, I believe that this new revolution will advantage the Province, because one of our great problems in the past has been the transportation costs of heavy finished products. As we move into microchips the Province will not be burdened with such costs. Therefore, somehow or other Northern Ireland must receive the one-fortieth of the economic cake, particularly in the microchip industry.
I know that the Minister responsible for industry in the Province is very concerned that we should introduce companies of this ilk, and he has at times afforded me the opportunity to discuss the possibilities. In fact, all the Ministers, with the exception of Lord Elton, one of the Under-Secretaries, have afforded me and all my colleagues opportunities to meet them face to face. In fairness, that should be put in the record. I ask the Minister to continue to pursue the possibility of getting these new microchip-based industries into the Province, and not least the Japanese industries. I know that he is anxious to do that. Therein lies the future for Northern Ireland. For long, we have struggled with the problems of transport and energy costs and infrastructure problems in the siting of new factories. I believe that this new Industrial Revolution, which is just around the corner, will be of advantage to the Province.
I come now to Class IV, which deals with Department of the Environment expenditure on roads, the building of bridges, and so on. I am critical of the way in which many contracts related to bridge-building and other Department of the Environment work have been retained and reserved for the in-house teams within the Civil Service. The Minister will know that the consultant engineers and many of the other consultancy groups in Northern Ireland depend on public expenditure contracts more than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
The moratorium, to which many Members have referred, and the cutbacks, have affected the consultancy groups in the Province more fiercely than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. Even at this stage much could be done for some of these consultant engineering groups. More of the work could be released to them than has been released so far. The in-house teams are monopolising the work in the Province to too great an extent.
Secondly, a number of contracts, among them the Foyle bridge contract, have been given to companies outside Ulster. There a small number—very small—that Ulster companies are perhaps not completely fitted and equipped to deal with. But the number of contracts being given to non-Ulster concerns is unfair and does not reflect the expertise and ability in the Province to carry out some of the sophisticated bridge-building and road construction work.
I move on to Class V, which deals with housing. I listened with interest to the observations of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive when he criticised the Government for the uncertainty and insecurity created by their lack of a planning programme. I believe that a five-year programme for the executive, which he wanted, is impracticable—indeed, impossible—but he has a point in stressing that it needs to know much sooner precisely how much money will be available to it for the next financial year.
To get a project on site requires many months during which definite information is available for planners, architects, those doing costings and quantity surveyors, and then to get all the plant on site. Unless the executive knows many months before the beginning of the next financial year, it will be impossible for it to keep its word to public representatives, constituents and tenants about the repair, refurbishing and rebuilding programmes. The executive should be told at least in August before the next financial year how much money will be available for it in that year.
That will not happen this year. Last year the executive did not know until January in the financial year 1980–81 exactly how much money would be available for the year beginning April 1981. That is wrong. It will not help us to produce the number of homes that are required.
I have great sympathy with the Minister when he says that he cannot produce a five-year plan that will not be amended, and that he cannot anticipate what money will be available for housing in five years, but much more could be done to create more certainty and stability within the housing movement.
Incidentally, I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the way in which he has responded to the movement. He has substantially increased the moneys available, though we could use a little more if more materialised during the latter part of this financial year. The extra moneys have made it possible for many projects that were in jeopardy to get under way.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the potential for more use of the housing association movement during the present financial year in relation to specialised housing for the elderly and disabled and the rehabilitation phases. I was able to announce at the second meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee, unhappily when the hon. Gentleman was out of the room for a few


minutes, a substantial additional programme of projects within the Province, which I brought forward from next year to this year in the housing association movement's programme of expenditure.

Mr. Bradford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, which proves that he is sensitive to the need in the voluntary sector.
The Minister may also have helped with the sheltered dwellings programme. He will know that it is estimated that by 1985, 9,000 sheltered dwellings will be required. I am not sure what the present figure is, but it was just over 1,000 at the beginning of the present financial year. I wonder whether some of the programmes that he mentioned involve sheltered dwellings. If so, I am delighted. If not, let me tell him that the need for more sheltered dwellings in Northern Ireland cannot be exaggerated or over-emphasised.
I wish to mention one further matter under Class V—the importance of spending as much money as possible on housing in the public sector—not just because houses are needed, but because it will create jobs. The matter was touched on by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I am totally committed to more public expenditure in the housing sector, because it has the dual benefit of providing much-needed homes and creating much-needed jobs. I underline that issue again.
However, further expenditure on housing is needed for another reason that will reflect on the peace of mind of tenants in houses that are in poor repair. No doubt, at some stage the Minister will tell the House about the increase in rents. Certainly, there must be a realistic rent for housing in 1981–82, but he will understand the great reluctance to pay that extra money if the repairs to which tenants are entitled are not carried out.
The Minister should therefore look at the amount of money that is available to the Housing Executive, and not only for building and refurbishing programmes. He must not look just to the voluntary housing movement. He must give serious and isolated consideration to the amount of money that should be spent on repairs. If necessary, he should order the Housing Executive to spend £x on repairs. If work is done on the houses that are in grave disrepair there will be less reluctance to pay future rent increases. I would be loth to criticise any tenant who says "You are getting no more money from me for this house until it is put into proper repair". If the machinery exists for the Minister to say to the executive "You must spend £x million on repairs and on nothing else", the Minister should use that, machinery.
Class IX deals with health and social services expenditure. Again, I point out that this is the International Year of Disabled People. The Government have been sensitive to many of the ideas that have been put forward in Northern Ireland, but now that we are two-thirds of the way through the IYDP I wonder whether it would be a good idea for the Government to list what precisely has been achieved in Northern Ireland for that section of the community which occupies our thoughts during this year and list the objectives that have not been achieved.
I am particularly concerned about the provision of old peoples' homes. There is a growing need for such homes in Northern Ireland. A survey that was made in 1975 showed that 15 beds were needed per 1,000 of the elderly population. We have achieved nothing like that.
The Minister responsible is kind enough to let me know from time to time the future prospects for the Woodstock Road old people's home, and I am grateful to him. But we need more than letters and expressions of good intentions; we need these homes to materialise. In this International Year of Disabled People, even if we have only one-third of it to come, the Minister could do a great deal worse than concentrate his energies on the provision of more beds for old people who can no longer care for themselves.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should produce, either now or at the end of IYDP, a checklist of what we have achieved and failed to achieve in the Province. I ask him to remember only that the International Year of Disabled People is linked to the voluntary organisations. It is not a wholly State-run year. Secondly, I ask him to reflect on the importance of not letting the year finish at the end of 1981 and saying "That is the end of action for the disabled". We must stress the importance of keeping in being the valuable movements that public and private organisations have got going in the Province into 1982 and beyond.

Mr. Bradford: I take the Minister's point. However, the thought occurs to me that if obvious needs are not met in the year given over to the disabled it is very much less likely that those needs will be met when we move on to concentrating on some other facet of society's needs. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very sensitive to all the programmes and projects placed before him. However, there is a need, before it is too late, to ask ourselves what precisely we have achieved and what we may achieve before the year ends.
I revert to Class III, which deals with energy. In this connection I may be at variance with some of my colleagues in talking about the future of the gas industry in the Province. I am totally committed to securing a place for Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom's integrated gas system, and I suspect, and am very unhappy about, any moves to divert our attention to a link-up with the South. I say that not for ridiculous party political reasons but for economic reasons of the best kind. We should be sharing and involving ourselves in the total assets of the kingdom to which we belong. I should be very unhappy if we pursued the possibility of a link-up with Kinsale and the South when there is no economic argument for dropping the case for integration into the United Kingdom gas network.
I am not an expert in these matters. I do not pretend to have a grasp of all the technicalities involved. But I have a very comprehensive brief from those who have such a grasp. They say that with the inclusion of the Morecambe Bay field into the integrated system, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland shares some of the characteristics of Morecambe Bay—by which I mean the possibility of storing natural gas for periods and then releasing it, and I understand that those geological characteristics exist at Kilroot—we have a real case for integration into the United Kingdom network.
The case is very simple. Just as gas is stored at Morecambe Bay for use during winter periods, so it can be stored in Kilroot, if there is a pipeline. I understand that the link with the Morecambe Bay field would cost £30 million less than a link with the North Sea scheme, which was suggested about four years ago.
I do not know whether that £30 million estimate is false or accurate. It is still not too late to decide to keep the gas industry alive in Northern Ireland. If the £30 million is correct, there is no economic argument for failing to link with the Morecambe Bay field. If we do fail to do that we are pushed back to the unsavoury position of having to conclude that the decision not to give us the North Sea gas asset is political. We do not want to come to that conclusion but we shall have no alternative if it is proved that the decision is taken not on an economic basis but on some other basis.
The Minister might not have time to answer all the points put to him. I shall be happy to receive his replies in writing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): I shall attempt to answer some of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on health and social security and education matters. I shall divide my remarks into two, dealing with three issues in relation to health in particular. I shall deal with the hospitals in Antrim and Purdysburn and the new tower block at the Belfast city hospital about which serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I shall then examine education in relation to rural schools, segregated education and the impact of the Chilver review on higher education in the Province.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not in his place, asked me specifically to tell the House what steps we were taking in the interim period while the Antrim hospital project cannot go ahead to ensure that hospital services in the area do not suffer. We are in continuous consultation with the Northern board on the implications of the delay. We are making additional funds available to ensure that between now and 1985, which is the earliest time that the hospital can begin, hospital services, which are good, are maintained.
I turn to the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who also, unfortunately, is not in the Chamber, about the Purdysburn hospital, which is the subject of an industrial dispute. It is not profitable for a Minister to attempt to intervene in collective bargaining between the employers, the Eastern board, and the trade unions. I hope that the Opposition agree with me. The hon. Member for Belfast, West expressed the view given to him by the trade union side. I should welcome the opportunity to put the other side of the story. The House will recognise that generally there are two sides. I refute once again the allegation that Purdysbum hospital is understaffed. Within the last few weeks 30 new full-time posts have been created in the hospital. That will increase greatly the standard of care available.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I have met representatives of COHSE and the board. Is not the figure of 735 staff at the Purdysburn hospital agreed by the district nursing officer, on behalf of the board, and union representatives? Is not the number at the hospital below that figure?

Mr. Patten: I am not prepared from the Dispatch Box to enter into arguments between employers and trade unions when an industrial dispute is taking place. I wish that the hon. Members for Belfast, West and for Belfast, East would use their offices, through their contacts with

COHSE, to persuade nurses in the hospital—even while the industrial dispute is taking place—to continue nursing special category patients. They are refusing to do that. It is a serious matter. Failure to provide adequate nursing care for special category patients, even while a dispute is taking place, should not happen. It runs contrary to national policy and also to COHSE trade union policy. I ask both hon. Gentlemen to make every possible attempt to ensure that that practice is brought to an end.
My last point on health and social services concerns a serious allegation by the hon. Member for Belfast, East about financial improprieties in the carrying out of the long-delayed and expensive contract for the tower block of Belfast city hospital. The building of the hospital has been a sad saga. I do not wish to go over ground that has been crawled over time and time again by right hon. and hon. Members, including spokesmen from both Front Benches. Nor do I wish to go into the detailed examination of the accounts of the building of the hospital that has been carried out by the Public Accounts Committee.
The hon. Gentleman has made serious allegations, which imply that there was some irregularity in the payment of public funds for the contract. I shall choose my words carefully because it is a serious allegation. No such suggestion was contained in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General that was prepared for the PAC. My understanding is that the so-called tower bonus, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was paid to all contractors on the site. In the face of the allegations made in the Chamber, all that I can do is to repeat that if the hon. Gentleman has any concrete evidence of irregularity we shall take urgent steps to investigate it. I shall be grateful if he will let me have such evidence at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Robinson: When the Minister refers to "all contractors", I assume that he includes sub-contractors. What he has said runs contrary to my information from the sub-contractors. How does he reconcile that with the quotation that I gave from the Belfast News Letter, from the branch secretary of the union involved?

Mr. Patten: It is difficult to conduct industrial relations negotiations from the Dispatch Box. It is also difficult to carry out detailed examinations of public accounts from the Dispatch Box. It is extremely important that the hon. Gentleman should let me have as soon as possible in detail any information about the alleged non-payment to sub-contractors. It will be subjected to the most detailed investigation. I do not feel that I can go any further on that point this afternoon.
I turn to the second part of my remarks, and the question of education. I said that I wished to look at three themes—rural schools, segregated education and the supposed impact of the Chilver review of higher education in Ulster. The hon. Member for Antrim, North made an extremely important point that is as common on this side of the water as it is on the other side, namely, the impact on rural schools of declining rolls.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House know how important schools are to small rural communities, and what an important role they play not only in the education of children but in the life of the villages and townships of which they are a part. It is not the intention of the Government or of my noble Friend Lord Elton, to run down rural schools as a deliberate part of policy.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that we must address our attention more and more to the three Rs in schools. I say "Hear, hear" to that. There is a point below which numbers cannot fall in a rural school or in a town school. We have examples in West Belfast as well. There is a point below which numbers cannot fall, beyond which the teaching of the three Rs is impeded and the levels and quality of education become not better because of the small size, but worse.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that the rural schools which the Government intend closing in Portglenone have a full complement of children? They have more than the complement required for a two-teacher school. The children who are now coming up and who will attend those schools if they are kept open will mean that there will be an increase in attendance over past years. Why close such schools?

Mr. Patten: I take the hon. Member's point. It is one which I intend to bring to the attention of my noble Friend who is responsible for these matters.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister be able to see him?

Mr. Patten: I see him often on aeroplanes and at lunches, just as I see the hon. Members for Antrim, North and for Belfast, East on the aeroplanes going back and forth to Belfast. Knowing the noble Lord as I do—of course, he is not able to defend himself in this place—it does not ring true to suggest that he would not see a delegation.
I turn to the issue of the Chilver review of higher education. I have been challenged by hon. Members on both sides of the House to say more about the proposed and supposed impact of the review. I can say no more than that we have not yet received the final report of the Chilver committee. The first thing which everyone is taught about appearances at the Dispatch Box is never to say "Yea" or "Nay" about unsubstantiated speculation in the press, whether it is in The Times Educational Supplement, the Belfast Newsletter, Fur &amp; Feather—

Mr. Concannon: Or Horse and Hound.

Mr. Patten: The right hon. Gentleman suggests Horse and Hound. There is no point in commenting on speculation in the press. Let us wait and see what Chilver says. We expect to have the Chilver report by the end of the year.
Let me say to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, that just because the Government ask for reports and they are produced it does not mean that those reports are necessarily acted on by the Government. I should think that the weight of reports produced and which are in the Library of the House which have never been acted on must be prodigious—not that I am suggesting for one second that we shall not act on Chilver.
Lastly, I turn to the long-running saga between the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and myself ever since I have been a junior Minister over the issue of segregated education. I know his views well. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know and respect his views. He wishes to see a greater measure of integrated education in Ulster. The Government wish to produce in Ulster the education which the people of Ulster want. For example, the people do not want comprehensive

education, so we do not intend to impose it on the people of Ulster. It seems to us that at the moment the majority of people in Ulster do not wish to have a form of integrated education forced on them.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is it forcing the people for the Government to decide that they cannot accept the separation of children at an early age according to religion for educational purposes? The Government should make a decision so that taxpayers' money will not be wasted on two systems of education but will be used only for one.

Mr. Patten: Taxpayers' money is spent on education devoted to one religion or another on this side of the water, just as it is on the other side of the water. It is an important issue of parental choice. I have always believed that as far as possible taxpayers' money should be spent in the way that taxpayers would like to see it spent. I bet my bottom dollar that the majority of people in Northern Ireland who pay taxes would prefer to see continue a system of education based on controlled schools and independent Roman Catholic schools, however much the hon. Gentleman may disagree. However, I note with great interest that the hon. Gentleman has support for a greater measure of integration from the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). The hon. Gentleman pointed out that controlled schools were precisely that—schools controlled by the State—and that they have no particular religious affinity. I look forward with interest to further remarks of that sort from him.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Minister emphasises strongly that he is guided by opinion in Northern Ireland, so the answer is to put the matter to a referendum. Let the people decide.

Mr. Patten: I shall convey that suggestion to my noble Friend.

Mr. Fitt: Many Roman Catholic schools are situated in so-called Republican areas, such as the Falls Road, Andersonstown and the Bogside. Does the Minister really see an avalanche of children of free Presbyterians running into those areas to go to school?

Mr. Patten: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than I do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister make it clear that the grant system for schools in Northern Ireland is not uniform? An independent Protestant school receives no grant from the Government. My position is clear. If a Church wants to run a school, it should pay for it. There should be one system of non-denominational education run by the State.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman's views are well known.
I say to the hon. Member for Down, North that, in advancing the cause of integrated education and in calling for a moderate approach to education, it ill behoves him to use the language of extremism and to talk about educational apartheid.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I shall not be drawn into the dangerous minefield of denominational education but will content myself with dealing with a subject on which there will he a common view in the House—the Sports Council. I had intended to deal with the matter at some length, but I understand that the hon.


Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will cover it in more detail. It is, however, curious that the Sports Council alone of all the youth organisations is to have the funds allocated to it cut.
I wish to deal briefly with Class IV, item 2, particularly the road safety aspect. The House deliberated long and thoroughly on the roads order two years ago. At the end of that, we all assumed that the definition of what constituted a "road or highway" would enable the police and the Department of the Environment at long last to deal effectively with the problem of itinerants' camps.
The Lisburn council area seems to be the most afflicted by this serious problem, notably on two illegal sites. The Environment Minister who is present is no doubt aware of one of them, as it is on the main road from the airport to Moira and thence down to the M1, on the main Moira road at Ballinderry. The second is a few miles away at Bushfield Road, also near Moira.
Now that the Department and the police have been given the power to deal with this, why are the authorities reluctant to act in response to the pleas of the law-abiding permanent citizens of those areas? It is not only those who reside in Moira who are affected. As one who often has to travel on the main Moira road at night, I can say that one may be suddenly confronted with the spectacle of a stray horse or other animal looming up in the middle of the carriageway. There seems to be no attempt to control this, as there is no fence between the itinerants' camp and the road. I am not suggesting that the camp should be fenced off. We want it removed from the locality altogether.
It cannot be claimed that the mechanism is cumbersome or slow-moving. There was a dramatic example of how it can be made to work at Easter 1980, when a section of Bushfield Road was closed to provide a special stage in the circuit of Ireland motor rally. The organisers discovered just a few days before the rally that the section to be closed for that special part of the test included the itinerants' camp. Because the itinerants refused to obey the order and clear their various caravans and animals off the road, or perhaps because they would be somehow inconvenienced, at the last minute—only 24 hours beforehand—the area was switched to another section of the same road, causing great inconvenience to farmers and others with a legitimate interest in using the road. It therefore cannot be contended that the machinery is too cumbersome, difficult or slow-moving to be put into action. As I have illustrated, it can be done in a matter of hours. What can be done in one case should be possible also in the longer term.
While this is not the kind of matter on which one would expect a detailed answer today, I am sure that the Minister will be prepared to look at the problem, which I assure him is a real one.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am most grateful to the Minister.
I wish to deal briefly with Class VIII, dealing with education. The Minister of State referred earlier to consideration of the demographic trend and the consequent effect on the school building programmes. This affects not only future accommodation but schools built quite recently. I am afraid that educational planners are no different from planners as a race. More often than not they get things wrong. They were certainly wrong in Antrim

where, some months ago, they concluded that of the three new secondary schools in the town one was already surplus to requirements. One is thankful that they stopped short of chopping one of them, which would have been the one with the weakest lobby at board level. I hope that the position will not be destabilised as a result of the Enkalon disaster, because it would be a regrettable step and a great mistake to jump to the conclusion that economic recovery in that area is impossible.
I should like now to look briefly at the problem of Enkalon in relation to Class II. We should not underestimate the scale of the effect on Antrim and the surrounding region of the Enkalon closure. I could understand the Minister's reluctance to disclose confidential information about the negotiations with the company when those negotiations were taking place over the last six months, since the parent group indicated that, for purely commercial reasons, it would have to contract and concentrate work on the Continent on more profitable products. Like other hon. Members, I feel that the Government, even in their own interests, will want to listen to what is said here today. I am sure that the Minister has listened with great attention. But now that the need for confidentiality no longer exists it would be helpful if the Government were to describe the points that have been at issue over the past six months. Perhaps I could encourage the Minister by posing questions that have not yet been answered—at least, not answered publicly.
First, when the Department of Commerce and its consultants completed the examination of the restructuring plan, did the Minister at the time feel it prudent and wise to offer £6 million in the way of assistance?
Secondly, when the parent company replied that that figure was inadequate, did the Minister and his colleague the Secretary of State, in the course of that hectic weekend of 4 and 5 July, which he will remember very well, increase the Government's offer of support?
Thirdly, it is a fact that the Northern Ireland Ministers wrested from the Treasury another £2 million last weekend, which brought the Government contribution up to £8½ million, which matched the input of the company itself?
Fourthly, as it was agreed that the factory would incur a working loss of about £12 million over three years, did the Government offer to cover half the cost of that loss-making operation?
Fifthly, is it possible to discover whether the company, at the end of it all, was convinced that profitability could be restored at the end of three years, even if the Government had gone all the way and met all the demands of the parent company?
I ask these questions so that elected representatives in Antrim and the unions concerned will have the facts before them as they urgently examine the possibility of retaining some form of activity on the Enkalon complex.
I plead with the Minister to avoid giving the impression that the door has been finally slammed. I accept that the Minister, like myself, will not want to commit the error of raising false hopes, but I make that plea to him. I am not at this stage asking for a re-start of the bargaining, but after all that the Minister and I have been through in the past two weeks I should like to be assured that he will be prepared at least to examine any fresh proposals that I may be in a position to put before him in the coming weeks.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his co-operation in receiving a series of deputations, when it has been


possible to put the wider Antrim case. We are grateful for the Minister's response in the form of an increase in selective financial assistance on the industrial front—an advance from 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. This will give Antrim an advantage. However, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) stated, I do not think that any other region will object when it is pointed out that Antrim's need is greater. If production were to cease entirely on the Enkalon site, unemployment in the Antrim travel-to-work area would be very much higher than in similar areas. I feel, as the Minister obviously feels, that the increase to give us the edge on other areas can be justified.
Whatever may be possible on the Enkalon site, I trust that advantage will be taken of the increased grants, particularly by new industries of the type mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). I can assure the Minister that the elected councillors in the Antrim borough and those of us who have played some small part in attempting to salvage something from the collapse of the company in Antrim will continue to provide our full co-operation in attempts to continue some form of production in the Enkalon complex and, even more important, to try to replace those jobs as soon as possible over a period of years by the introduction of fresh capital investment and new industries in the Antrim area.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In rising to address a House almost as empty as when considering the Armed Services, I confess that I had entertained the ambition of being able to put some propositions directly to the Patronage Secretary. That hope, which flickered occasionally during the day, has been finally extinguished; but I console myself with the presence of an inmate of the Whips Office; for although it is known that Whips do not speak, I believe that Whips hear. I therefore hope that the helpful advice that I should like to give will be conveyed to the Patronage Secretary.
I wish to raise the question "Why are we here at all?" I cannot imagine that it is particularly gratifying to the Patronage Secretary, as he and the other managers of Government business struggle, under the approach of the long recess, to get through the necessary business of the Government, to have to find a whole day, or virtually a whole day, to debate one of the three annual Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Patronage Secretary and the Government business managers understand why this is done. It is done not to provide facilities for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, or for other hon. Members concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland, to debate those matters, but for a purely technical reason. The Government still see fit to pretend that the Estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, which are in no way different from the Estimates for the other corresponding Departments of Government, cannot be included in a Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Bill, even though the sources of the finance, the management of the finance and the ministerial responsibility are absolutely identical in the case of the Northern Ireland Departments and in the case of all the other Estimates whose content is combined in the three Consolidated Fund Bills.
Having listened, as one should, to the prefatory words of Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was careful to refer to "the

Northern Ireland Departments"', for that small head on a large body which is known as the Northern Ireland Department—that small group staffed by former officials of the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Office and others swept together from the other corners of the Imperial Civil Service—is not included in the Estimates for the Province which is governed through that office. The result is that on the three full days in the year that the House, thanks to the Government, has to find for voting the money for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Members are prevented from debating the very subjects that they and their constituents most wish to have ventilated in the House. Vital matters, such as the policing, the security and the policy for the government of the Province as part of the United Kingdom are forbidden to us on each of the three virtually full days on which money for the government of the Province is voted by the House.
I can tell the Patronage Secretary that the House is about to receive advice from a Select Committee on Supply procedure, which has been labouring—oh, how labouring—to produce its report. I do not know officially what that advice may be, but I hope that when that Committee has reported the House will find more efficient and effective ways of using the Supply and kindred days which are reserved for Opposition use by the conventions and customs of this House. If that is so, Northern Ireland Members, along with Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom, will have full opportunity—as full as can be found within the ambit of a parliamentary Session—for bringing to the Floor of the House constituency matters, and matters larger than constituency matters, affecting the Province.
I am not arguing—I would not dream of suggesting it—that there should be any limitation or reduction in the opportunities open to Northern Ireland Members to ventilate the needs of their constituents. Though I do not see how we should be on strong ground in claiming more opportunity than hon. Members representing other parts of the kingdom, at any rate, I am not arguing for a restriction or limitation of what, in effect, we possess. I am saying that it is not to the advantage either of Northern Ireland or of the House as a whole that because of the maintenance of a pedantic technicality for devious political reasons—namely, the pretence that there has to be a separate Consolidated Fund and Appropriation procedure for the Province—these three days are imposed upon the patience of the House and of Ministers.
That said, I perform the first duty—I think that it is a duty—which falls to be performed on these days, and particularly on this, the principal of the Appropriation order days. There labour on behalf of the House and of Northern Ireland a devoted body of officials headed by the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland. His report is prefaced to the accounts of the last previous financial year. Out of consideration for Northern Ireland Members, the Public Accounts Committee has in the last year or two so arranged its business that its comments upon those comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General can be available to us for this occasion.
I have no intention of dealing with any matters that are retrospective and concern closed transactions—not that instruction cannot be drawn from blunders committed in the course of such transactions—but it would be wrong


the opportunity were not taken on the Floor of the House to draw attention to continuing lessons embodied in the two reports.
I am concerned, first, with the Department of Commerce and two cases that are of continuing instruction. The first is the case of the Peter Pan bakery, which raises the matter of use of public money to rationalise an industry by encouraging closures. The story of that transaction, as set out in the two accounts, is extremely grim, and it would be right to put on record the conclusion arrived at by the PAC: it
endorsed the Department's acknowledgement of the very great care that it must take in any future case
where it intends to use public money to ensure the closure of a company.
I gather that the case was the first experiment in that procedure. Perhaps it ought to be the last. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that they have fully accepted the strictures of the Public Accounts Committee.
Incidentally, while on the subject of the expenditure of public money by the Department of Commerce I should like to express my astonishment at the exchange that took place earlier between the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), in the course of which, although the right hon. Member disavowed the proposition that he was asking for open-ended subsidies to loss-making firms, he was not able to explain satisfactorily how he distinguished his position from that of the Government, since he was obliged to admit that there must always be an end to such a process.
It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to complain that the Government do not commit themselves to maintain in operation indefinitely firms that are making losses. He drew attention to the expense of closing a company—the loss entailed in such a closure and the burden of sustaining and compensating, in part, those rendered unemployed. But there is at least one figure on the other side that the right hon. Member for Mansfield omitted to mention. The loss made by a company is a debit to be placed against the charges incurred if the company closes. It is not a private loss which falls locally and individually on the shareholders; it is an actual loss to the economy of the country. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is potentially a double loss—not merely a loss of the resources used to no purpose but a potential loss of the production to which those resources—above all, those human resources—could, and in due course would, be devoted. So I hope that the right hon. Member for Mansfield will reflect on the exchange that took place and will conclude that the course that he appeared to be urging is not one that his party could defend.
The other Department of Commerce case that deserves to be recorded is that of McQuillan Brothers Ltd. One aspect of that case is so startling and shocking that it ought to receive public animadversion. In the course of the negotiations—the ill-fated negotiations—with that firm, the Department decided to make a further loan upon security of a building—a building which was to be improved and adapted. It was
assumed that the historic cost of the building plus the cost of the adaptations would represent the value of the factory against which it would be reasonable to make the loan.
It is almost inconceivable that a Department of State could act in a financial matter upon an assumption so infantile

as that one can value a building at its existing value, spend so much money on adaptations to it, and then assume that its effective market value will be the original value plus the cost of the adaptations. Yet that is what the Department of Commerce did. I hope that it will not do such a thing again and that its staff will be of a quality to prevent such an occurrence in future.
I come now to the Department of the Environment, qua the roads service. The Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention over several years to serious and dangerous deficiencies in the storekeeping of that Department—almost incredible deficiencies when one considers that the criticisms have been made so regularly. How serious they are should be put briefly on the record of the House. The Comptroller and Auditor General's officers
found the maintenance of store records so inadequate that they were frequently unable to ascertain what a store should have held and the extent of it, and reasons for the discrepancies. Stores records were very often out-of-date or inaccurate and in some stores were not maintained at all. In many stores maintenance of stock ledgers and the ordering and receipt of stores were the responsibility of storekeeping staff. The issue of materials without written power or authorisation is common. There was a widespread practice of omitting entries in stock ledgers of surplus materials returned to store on completion of jobs.
These are not all the complaints but just an epitome of the most serious ones that the Comptroller and Auditor General made. This is a scandal—the word is not too strong for the circumstances—and I hope that the Minister will give a firm undertaking that in no subsequent year will the House be faced with a repetition of those criticisms of storekeeping in the roads service. After all, it must be one of the major financial commitments of that service, and this state of affairs is a standing temptation and a standing opportunity for defalcation.
Finally, I have a somewhat less edged criticism, which concerns the charges for use of the forest parks. The Public Accounts Committee endorsed the recommendation of the Comptroller and Auditor General that these charges could be brought more closely into line with the cost of providing the facilities. The Committee believed that the Department had been
unduly sensitive about consumer resistance to increased charges in recent years and that it should not allow this factor to weigh so heavily with it when it is making its annual review of charges.
I know that it is not a popular thing for hon. Members to suggest increasing charges which either their constituents or others will have to pay; but this is a special case, and I heartily endorse and urge upon the Minister the recommendations of the Committee. I have two of these forest parks in my constituency, and remarkable and admirable institutions they are, from which immense delight, instruction and refreshment are obtained by young and old as they come from all over the Province and further a field, in huge numbers with their cars and caravans. I cannot believe that there would be any appreciable effect upon the use of those forest parks and their facilities if the charges were adjusted to meet, as is Government policy, the current costs of the services which would properly fall upon them. The serious result, if we go on in this way, will be that we shall find false economies being made in the care, maintenance and improvement of these forest parks. So the plea that I make is, as it should be in this debate, on behalf of the public at large; it is not a plea for a covert form of taxation. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to state firmly that that recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee will be accepted.
I gave notice to Ministers that I should take the opportunity to bring forward five other matters. Although all came to my notice initially in a constituency connection they all have wider importance and are worthy of a place in this debate. The first concerns the use by Her Majesty's Government, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Department of Fisheries of Northern Ireland, of the Government of the Isle of Man as their agency for the administration of the fisheries of the Irish Sea within the rules and overall control of the EEC.
The Irish Sea comprises the Mourne fishery, adjacent to the coast of County Down and the Mull fishery, adjacent to the coast of South-West Scotland; but all the rest, apart from the fishery area adjacent to the Irish Republic, is known technically as the Manx fishery. That is misleading. Of course, the Isle of Man is in the centre of it, but it is, in fact, all the rest of the Irish Sea.
For reasons best known to themselves—they may be satisfactory reasons—Her Majesty's Government have for some years devolved to the Government of the Isle of Man the administration of the Manx fishery, which is particularly important in the context of the herring fishery, subject as this is to strict limitation for conservation purposes. I have to impress upon the Department the fact that this function is executed by the Government of the Isle of Man in a manner which places vexatious limitations upon non-Manx boats desiring to avail themselves of their herring quotas in the Irish Sea and is deliberately designed to give an unfair and, in some cases, effectively exclusive advantage to the fishermen of the Isle of Man.
I refer, in particular, to the rule which forbids pair trawling, which is the major form of trawling for herring, except during night hours. At one stage there was perhaps a justification for this limitation in some waters immediately adjacent to the Isle of Man, but, there is no possible justification for it in the waters of the Irish Sea generally. The result is that boats based on Northern Ireland find themselves prevented from taking a catch which would otherwise be perfectly legitimate between the Isle of Man and their own ports in County Down. This absurd and pettifogging regulation has no conservation purpose—conservation is governed by quotas—and does not even preserve the waters that I have in mind between the west of the Isle of Man and the eastern coast of County Down for the Manx fishermen, because the Manx fishermen hardly fish there at all.
This is a miserable arrangement. Her Majesty's Government are responsible for what is done under this system which they have adopted. I take this opportunity to say publicly that they should review the question whether responsibility ought to be transferred in this way to the Government of the Isle of Man from where it properly rests, namely, with Her Majesty's Government.
While I am on the subject of the Isle of Man, I say one other word. We are coming up to a day if not of reckoning at any rate of sorting out with the Isle of Man. From the point of view of the EEC, the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom, but by convention internal to the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man is for most purposes independent. This results in our commonly having the worst of both worlds. Take, for example, meat exports. The Isle of Man forbids imports of meat into the island from Ulster. It can do this under the rules of the EEC because, from the point of view of the EEC, the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom and the EEC is no more concerned with trade between the Isle of Man and Ulster

than it is with trade between Birmingham and Leicester. On the other hand, if the Isle of Man were to impose restrictions on imports from the Irish Republic it would be in trouble. The consequence has been that, while refusing imports from Ulster, the island has been accepting substantial imports from the Irish Republic.
The anomalous position of the Isle of Man and its repercussions upon the citizens of the United Kingdom are matters which cannot indefinitely go on without reexamination. I am by way of giving notice that this is not the last that Ministers have heard of the consequences of the anomalous position of the Isle of Man within the British Isles and the European Community.
My second matter concerns the sale of houses by the Housing Executive—which, incidentally, was Government policy before there was a Conservative Government. That policy is beneficial to Northern Ireland in more ways than one. It is beneficial alsoex hypothesi to those who become home owners; but, as the sales are financed by building societies, it is also beneficial to housing in Northern Ireland generally, by increasing the total volume of capital available for house building by the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland.
This is a process to which we desire to see no impediment. Unfortunately', what happens is that an offer is made by the Housing Executive to a tenant; the tenant accepts it; the sale is ready to go forward; and the tenant obtains a mortgage from a building society, but before he can actually get the mortgage, signed and sealed, and thus complete the purchase, the Housing Executive naturally has to make good its title to the goods which it is about to sell—its title to the house.
The Housing Executive is the beneficiary—if that is the right word, which I do not think it is—or at any rate it has been the recipient of the stock of houses created by the previous housing authorities. I am sorry to say that in some cases the previous housing authorities were extremely careless about establishing title to the lands on which they built their houses. That might not have mattered before, but it matters very much now. The result is that in case after case where otherwise the sale could go forward and the tenant could become the owner and carry out works of improvement as he is longing to do, while the Housing Executive reaped the additional capital from the building society, the transaction is held up for months—sometimes years—in an endeavour to obtain good title.
I ask the Minister to see whether there is some mechanism that can be brought into play for dealing with this automatically after a certain point. I believe that I am correctly informed that if title cannot be established otherwise, some legal procedure exists which can be used in lieu.
The proposition that I am putting to the Minister is that he should agree with the Housing Executive that these delays will be tolerated only up to a certain point and that where, after a given period, it is found impracticable to establish title by normal means, the emergency procedure, so to speak, will be brought into play. At any rate, I should be glad to have an assurance that the Minister does not intend to accept this continued delay in the process of the sale of council houses.

Mr. David Mitchell: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I must admit that I am reluctant to introduce a special procedure which would require legislation, as I understand it, to enable the Housing Executive not to have


to go through the normal house conveyancing legal procedures that any other transfer of ownership requires. However, I am able to meet the right hon. Gentleman's point because the Executive is introducing for building society sales a form of indemnity which will enable the building society to be satisfied that the tenant proceeds on the basis of making the improvements while the existing and proper legal arrangements are fulfilled for the conveyancing of the property.

Mr. Powell: I am most obliged to the Minister. That will be good news to a large number of people who are being kept dangling at present.
I think the Minister will find, if he looks into the matter, that an alternative procedure is available without legislation; in one case of which I am aware that alternative procedure was put into force after a long lapse of time. However, I am not quarelling with him because I accept that his method of indemnity will produce the same practical result, and clearly one would wish normal establishment of title to take place wherever possible.
It is not often that one can register success on the spot in such a debate as this. I feel that the Minister and I have succeeded in doing that between us. I hope the good news will be speedily conveyed by the Housing Executive to the many would-be purchasers now in limbo as a result of the difficulty to which I have drawn attention.
Thus emboldened, but not, I hope, too flushed, by success I shall proceed to the remaining points. I can deal with the next very briefly because I received an affirmative reply on it at Question Time yesterday afternoon from the Minister at the Department of the Environment. I refer to the minor alteration in enforcement procedure which will end the abuse whereby, if planning control has been evaded or defied for over six months, it can no longer be enforced upon the defaulter. There have been too many cases where that has happened, and the fact that it works that way has become too widely known. It remains for me to say to the Minister, as I did briefly yesterday afternoon, that the sooner the order can be brought forward and the earlier the date of effect of the order, the better it will be for planning control and for respect for the maintenance of law in the Province.
The Comptroller and Auditor General and the examiner of statutory instruments drew attention a year or two ago to the fact that in Northern Ireland, unlike the remainder of the United Kingdom, some Departments took out commercial insurance. The House will be aware that Governments do not take out commercial insurance, because the Government is really all of us and there is no point in all of us insuring ourselves. The only consequence of a Government taking out commercial insurance is to pay gratuitously for covering losses which would fall in the same place if they were not so insured. On the face of it, commercial insurance by public Departments is a waste of public money, an unnecessary transfer of public money to private pockets.
I was surprised, therefore, when, together with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I had brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of State, I was told that he had reviewed the matter and Departments were effecting insurance through commercial insurers for further periods. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that apparent contradiction. On what principle can

it be justified, in Northern Ireland circumstances only, for Departments of Government to take out commercial insurance—a practice which appears to be in conflict with what I thought was an established principle? It is only right that the decision should be publicly explained. If it cannot be explained in today's debate, a public explanation for something so surprising should be given later.
My last point relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. Despite the quaint arrangement of this debate, there is no problem in my raising this matter after the Minister responsible for that Department has spoken because it is a matter on which he and I are at one and where we would both wish our view to prevail in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole; for, as was said earlier, social security provision is effectively uniform throughout the United Kingdom. So I wish briefly to put on record a peculiar form of the "poverty trap" which could be removed, and should be removed, as it is manifestly unjust to those who become its victims.
One of my constituents suffered an injury at work which, I fear, has resulted in his permanent disablement. Initially he received sickness benefit, child benefit and supplementary benefit. His whole income was about £65 per week. However, in due course, and before he had received supplementary benefit for a full 12 months, he became entitled to invalidity benefit. One might suppose that that would be beneficial—as presumably it is intended to be—to my constituent. On the face of it, his total income rose to about £71 per week. But in fact, as a result, because he lost entitlement to free school meals and also to the higher scale rate to which he would have been entitled on supplementary benefit after a full year, my disabled constituent's effective income has been reduced by £7 or £8 per week—a not inconsiderable sum for him and his family—by the transition from sickness plus supplementary benefit to invalidity benefit.

Mr. John Patten: indicated assent.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful for the Minister's assent. I know that he has paid personal attention to the case.
This is an admitted absurdity in the present arrangements. As the Minister pointed out, it can be remedied if the 12-month condition for the higher rate could be fulfilled partially by supplementary benefit and partially by invalidity benefit. I understand that for the United Kingdom as a whole the cost of removing this absurd injustice, would be about £15 million a year. I should like to put on the record that it would be £15 million well spent, and I trust that the Northern Ireland Office will be making representations to the other Departments in the United Kingdom for this reform to be included in the next round of amendments to the social security scheme.
That only illustrates the way in which an individual case arising in a remote constituency in the United Kingdom may be—and in this case ought to be—the means of remedying a defect in legislation and administration of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Although our debate on the Northern Ireland Estimates for the current financial year has been demoted to a Friday, I hope that that in no way detracts from its importance both to the British taxpayer and to the people of Northern Ireland.
When opening the debate the Minister said that it was clear that we had not got the structure right yet. I believe


that this Administration has tried hard to get the right structure. It appears that we must go back to the mill and try to work put something. It is unsatisfactory, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that there was a winding-up speech from a Minister before the debate had been terminated. That must be considered.
I have no intention of going over the ground covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who has covered this part of the debate so well. However, I share his hope that the Minister who replies will respond positively to the points that he made and to the questions which he has asked.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a good speech. He spoke much sense, especially when he talked about the 15 and 50-year-olds and their job prospects. What he said is, sadly, true. What he said about British Enkalon and Abbey Meats is also, sadly, true. I believe that the pleas that he made to the Ministers during the debate will, unfortunately, fall on deaf ears. We join with the hon. Member in what he has been saying about those issues.
However. I wondered, when the hon. Member was speaking, and when he was joined by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and others, whether he had a twinge of regret that he was responsible, as much as any other person, for bringing down the previous Administration. I cannot speak for them, but with hindsight I should have thought that they would not have gone through the Lobby on that night if they had known what would happen—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Taking into consideration that the hon. Member's party has now officially come down on the side of a united Ireland, surely he can hardly expect any Unionist Member in Northern Ireland to have any regrets. Perhaps he should put pressure on the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who, of course, is a different kettle of fish.

Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman may be spending so much time looking into constituency problems that he is unable to bother too much about the intricacies of the Labour Party and the way in which we take our democratic decisions. We have arrived at no such conclusion. Perhaps he will reflect on that.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the problems in agriculture. There is a serious need for additional help, but under Class I there is to be reduction in the funds available for agriculture support. Agricultural produce is Northern Ireland's chief resource, after labour, so the Government's negative attitude is difficult to comprehend. Production, processing and marketing schemes are an integral part of the proper and successful operation of the agriculture industry. I am sorry to see that the Government have not learnt from their mistake of disbanding the agricultural trust, a matter which we debated at great length. By this Vote they continue to erode the essential support services for this most vital and needy industry.
On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to the plight of agriculture in Northern Ireland, as have many other Northern Ireland Members. The hon. Members for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and Antrim, North did so today. There may be a danger that constant repetition of the dismal situation will deaden our concern, but I feel most strongly that every opportunity should be taken to air the problems of farmers in Northern Ireland.
In the past year in particular, many farmers have suffered serious losses and setbacks because of the poor weather at the beginning of the summer—I suppose that we cannot blame the Government for that. They have had to wait many weeks for help from the £10 million allocated by the EEC. That little help is, of course, welcome, but, as the hon. Member for Londonderry said, it is only a drop in the ocean, and it is eroded by these financial cuts. It is widely expected that the next figures for the net farm income will show a drop of 70 per cent., which is a devastating blow to farmers, who had to suffer an average cut of 60 per cent. in the previous year.
I urge the Government to heed the pleas from the Ulster Farmers Union and Northern Ireland Members representing rural constituencies to come forward with additional funds for the struggling farmers in the Province and, indeed, for all those in the food processing and agriculture-related industries that rely heavily on the well-being of agriculture for their livelihood.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the Abbey Meats problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield raised the matter in the renewal debate, and we expected a reply on that occasion, but there has been complete silence. It is a worrying situation. We hope that in his reply the Minister will give encouragement to those who work at Abbey Meats.
Many hon. Members mentioned poverty and social need. The grim catalogue of statistics has been repeated many times, and has certainly not diminished as a result of the Government's policies. Nowhere is that more true than in Class V. It is certainly true of housing in the Province, where three times as many houses are unfit for human habitation as in the remainder of the United Kingdom. We have said this in Committee, and it has been repeated many times, but it needs repeating time and again. The figure was once much higher—there were five times as many—but, thanks to the previous Administration's commitment to improving the condition of Northern Ireland's housing stock, there has been a marked improvement. However, this Government plainly do not have the same commitment. The budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been consistently eroded over the past two years. The entire work of the executive was jeopardised last summer with the moratorium on building projects and the cut in its annual budget.
It is now time to ask the Government exactly where they stand on the matter of financing housing projects in Northern Ireland. It is no good sitting back and relaxing, as they appear to be doing, because the budget to the housing associations has been increased. The increase is welcome, of course, but in terms of the overall problem the difference will be extremely marginal. Some very serious questions must be asked of the Minister responsible, who, unfortunately, will not be replying to the debate. I see him scribbling very fast, so perhaps he will be passing messages to his hon. Friend.
First, are the Government prepared to indicate what will be the budget for public sector housing in Northern Ireland for the next three or four years? House building is a long-term venture. Not surprisingly, the executive needs to know whether it can meet its bills on a similarly long-term basis.
Secondly, are the Government committed to bringing housing standards in Northern Ireland up to the national standard? In the rest of the United Kingdom, the unfitness


level is 4 per cent. The people of Northern Ireland would like to know whether the Government intend to bring the level in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. If they do not, what possible excuse can there be for withholding funds and eroding the budget?
Further, will the Minister make it absolutely clear what happens to the proceeds of the sale of council houses in Northern Ireland? Do they all go into the current expenditure budget of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and is it possible to carry over such funds from one financial year to the next? That is certainly not clear to me, so perhaps the Minister will help on that.
Society cannot afford the social consequences of not investing in housing. That is especially true in Northern Ireland, where such a high proportion of the population is under the age of 20 and where there is such a dearth of adequate housing in the inner cities. On 10 July the Minister responsible for housing made two comments which, if logically linked, would go some way towards solving the problem. He said that he was making housing a top priority in the Department of the Environment. I see the Minister nod, so I am right there. At the same time, he stressed that the Government had a duty to help to create and retain jobs in the Province. This time, I do not see him nodding. Perhaps he will clarify that.
If the Minister is prepared to act upon his words—I am sure that I have them right, as I listened very carefully—he could do no better than to increase the budget to the housing sector in Northern Ireland to alleviate the Province's dire housing problems. As at least two hon. Members have already mentioned, 26,000 construction workers are unemployed, representing about one in five of the total unemployed in Northern Ireland. If the Minister were true to his words he would ensure that they had some positive work to do. I hope that he will get that message across one way or another before the end of the debate.
If the Minister were meeting his responsibilities properly he would have taken action some time ago. I hesitate in saying that, as I believe that he has perhaps not been in office long enough. A number of compliments have been paid to him, to which I add my own, as he seems to be sensitive to these issues. I therefore have some hope that the Minister will respond to what we have said. I shall leave the matter there, in the hope that my instincts are right and that the Minister will take action along the lines that I have suggested he should.

Mr. David Mitchell: I intervene briefly to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman made about housing. He referred to the erosion of the budget for the Housing Executive. I must tell him that the expenditure planned for the Housing Executive this year is higher than for last year.
I find it very difficult to understand the repeated references by the hon. Gentleman to cuts every time we increase the expenditure. I assure him that the expenditure on housing repairs is up. He referred to house building starts as being inadequate. We would all agree that the number of housing starts is not as high as we would wish, but I am able to assure him that they have gone up ever since he left the Province. I have the figures before me. There were 2,841 starts in 1978. When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in 1979 there were 2,046. This

year we expect to have 3,600. I am sure that he will be pleased to note that since we took office we have made substantial progress along the lines that he wishes.

Mr. Pendry: The Minister has disappointed me already. He is referring much more to things that are said outside this House rather than inside it—and by very senior people within the Housing Executive—about the cuts. We left a great deal of construction in the pipeline, and the Minister and his colleagues are able to claim credit for that. We could also throw doubt on the question of starts, but that would get us nowhere. But one thing is certain, and the Minister cannot deny it. There is an enormous housing problem and there is also a great unemployment problem among construction workers.
The main point is that if the Government want to tackle the housing problem in a meaningful way and to give employment to the construction workers they must produce a better plan than the present one. Let us not talk about particular years when either his Administration or ours did well. If he wants to play that game—we have done it in Committee—I assure him that we shall come off rather better than he will.
With regard to Class VIII—education—it goes without saying that the education service is one of the Government's most vital responsibilities in laying the foundations for future social and community life. But, here again, the Government have not lived up to their responsibilities. The cuts in this year's capital expenditure programme in the education sector are nothing new to Northern Ireland. They have come up time and time again in these debates. Nevertheless, we believe that the consequences for Northern Ireland have been devastating.
The cuts take place against a background of social disadvantage that is unparalleled in any other region of the United Kingdom. That is beyond doubt. It should never be forgotten that over 50 per cent. of Northern Ireland's children are brought up in families who are either living below or on the minimum income level that is considered essential, by this Government, as it was by the previous Labour Government, to meet basic needs.
Where the education service has to operate against such a background of community deprivation it should have all the help and support that we can muster. With such obstacles in the way of progress there is an obvious case for boosting education services. Yet over the past year school staffing has been hit, allowances for books and materials have not risen to match inflation, new equipment is unobtainable, new building work has been almost eliminated, and the maintenance of premises has been drastically curtailed. I do not notice any Minister disagreeing with that.
In the Estimates before us today there is no indication that the position will improve over the next year; in fact, signs of deterioration are already apparent. Over 350 teaching posts have been eliminated from the service and there is little hope of work for the newly qualified teachers who will be corning out of college in a few weeks from now. The Government are using the excuse of falling rolls. The Minister of State, who, I am sure, is being very attentive to the matter, mentioned it earlier. The Government give this as the reason for additional cuts in the service. What they should be doing is redeploying the finances and the resources released by fewer children coming into schools to improve the service.
Since hon. Members last discussed the subject there has been a further erosion in the school meals service in Northern Ireland. The Government cannot blame local authorities for these cuts, as they can in the rest of the United Kingdom. The erosion is the direct responsibility of the Government. Over the last two years, up to March 1981, the number of school meals served in Belfast schools fell by 1¼ million—a change that is no doubt reflected throughout the Province, especially since the increase in price of 50p a day last January. The number employed in the school meals service over those two years has fallen by over 1,000. It has been stated in the House that many of those employed in the service are working part-time to supplement a small family income. Most will not be shown on the unemployment register.
Of all the cuts and reallocations in Northern Ireland's budget over the last two years one of the most serious has perhaps been the rundown of funds available for sporting activities. Some hon. Members may think that my priorities are somewhat inverted. I understood that the hon. Member for Antrim, North intended to make more of this matter but has decided to leave it to me. I would never underestimate the social value of a sports and leisure centre in a local community. Any hon. Member who underestimated that value would be making a great mistake. The value of such services is enhanced considerably when so many of those communities are without work or without any useful activity with which to fill their days.
I visited Northern Ireland on two occasions recently. I attended the United Kingdom athletics championships at Antrim, where I was impressed yet again by the significance of the contribution that sport and physical recreation make to a sense of normality and continuity and to the good side of life in Northern Ireland, of which there is a great deal. It is difficult to place a value on the benefit to Northern Ireland of events such as the athletics championships and the world bowls event at Jordanstown, which I also attended.
I hope, as I understand the Minister also hopes, that the Football Association and other sporting bodies will have noted these successful meetings and will not repeat their recent folly of pulling out of sporting events in the Province. Surely, the events of recent weeks in this country have demonstrated the dangers of allowing inner city areas in particular to become barren wastelands of poor housing and warehouses.
It is essential that the Government should give a long-term commitment to the provision of leisure services in decaying areas and in all places where social deprivation is rife. I believe that the previous Labour Government realised the value of sporting activity. We were proud to have left Northern Ireland with a number of well-equipped sports centres. This Government obviously give little priority to sport, as one can see by the attempt to disband the Sports Council last summer. This was successfully reversed, due to widespread pressure in the House and outside.
I marvel at the treatment received by the Sports Council in these Estimates. It appears to be totally inconsistent with the treatment given to the Sports Councils in England, Wales and Scotland. At a time when their budgets have been approved at 8 per cent. to 12 per cent. above last year, the Northern Ireland Sports Council is to suffer a decrease of 4 per cent. I hope that the Minister, if he does not refer to anything else in my speech when he

replies, will explain why the Sports Council in Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. it is important that that should be said.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman is keenly interested in sport. We appreciate that. Perhaps I may ask him to lend support to the efforts that some of us are making to persuade the Gaelic Athletic Association to end its unjust ban on ex-Service men or Service men taking part in its activities.

Mr. Pendry: I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak on that subject previously. That question was put to me. on the first occasion on which I was at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. I believe that this matter must be looked at long and hard in the context of what I was speaking about—sport for all in Northern Ireland.
There is another discrepancy in Class VIII, Vote 3, which requires detailed examination. The average increase in the recurrent expenditure for museums, the arts and the youth services is 16 per cent. We welcome that increase, but we do not understand the rationale for increasing it there, on the one hand, and reducing the Sports Council grant, on the other. I can only conclude that the Government are trying a new and different method, having lost their fight to banish the Sports Council altogether. of eroding the Sports Council's effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will explain in full exactly what is the Government's view of the Sports Council.
If the Government want someone on their side of the House to support what I am saying they should look at the relevant Hansard for 1977, when the White Paper on sport and recreation was debated, when the Minister now responsible for sport went out of his way to praise the development of sport and the Sports Council in Northern Ireland. Perhaps Ministers will take time to read what was said by their hon. Friend then.
It seems that we have the difficulty of the Minister responsible for sport in Northern Ireland being in the other place. I know that he cannot be everywhere at once, but sometimes in these debates we do not get sufficiently punchy and factual replies on these important issues because he is in the other place. If we restructure these debates I hope that we shall have better communications between the other place and this place.
For instance, under Class VI the grants to the town and country planning service for provision of recreational facilities have also been cut. It seems that wherever we have sport and recreation we shall have such cuts. The grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive contains provision for recreational facilities, but there is a cut there, too. The grants have been chopped to a nominal £1,000 where they have gone to district councils.
I often ask myself what the Government have got against sport, because it seems to be part of a dedicated pattern on their part that they knock sport at every level and every turn. At this most delicate time in Northern Ireland's history it is essential that the Government should act positively to cut down the attractions of terrorist activity for the disaffected young. Where unemployment and social deprivation are high, so are the inducements to criminal behaviour. By increasing funds available for recreational and sporting activities, or, at the very least, by not cutting them, the Government would be making a significant contribution to alleviating a complex social problem, which is, sadly, not confined to Northern Ireland.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to grants being made to the electricity and gas industries, but there has been little mention of the fact that this year there is no grant for fuel cost assistance for those on supplementary benefit. Electricity prices in Northern Ireland, however they are pegged, are still among the highest, if the highest, in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, no increased amount of gas will make the burden of paying fuel bills one jot easier. The Government's action in removing aid to the poorest section of society has demonstrated their mean and penny-pinching attitude, and they have further deprived one of the already most deprived communities in these islands.
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield about the dire employment position in

Northern Ireland and I reiterate that the Government's policies must take a large share of the blame for that senseless waste of human resources. In recent weeks we have had both a Church of Ireland bishop and a Catholic bishop in Northern Ireland calling attention to the problems.
The words of the Bishop of Derry, Dr. Edward Daly, carry a special message. They were delivered just after the Courtaulds Campsie closure was announced. He said:
Unemployment has been a major factor in much of the civil unrest that has taken place in the area in recent years; the civil unrest has added to the difficulty of attracting new industries … One social evil feeds off another.
Unless the Government take heed of those words and others spoken in the debate, the problems of the people of Northern Ireland will get much worse. The real remedy must be a change of Government, and the sooner the better.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): Questions have been asked about whether the procedures that we follow in arranging Northern Ireland debates are the best. We have had virtually a full day's debate and covered an immense amount of ground. It is my lot to try to respond to the many points made in the debate. In other circumstances it might have been possible for me to deal with them all in detail, but the pressure of time will not allow that. However, I shall, as usual, ensure that either my office or my hon. Friend's offices carefully go through what has been said and respond to the various points.
On a personal note, and on behalf of my fellow Ministers, I should reply to the suggestions that we are not as accessible as we ought to be. My noble Friend Lord Elton has been criticised in his absence. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that almost nobody is more accessible than my noble Friend for those who wish to put their problems to him. No doubt he will read the report of the debate and will consider whether he can improve his accessibility.
There must be a limit on the time that Ministers can make available, but I frequently have meetings with management, trade union representatives and hon. Members. Indeed, my room is probably the best ventilated in the Northern Ireland Office, because the door is permanently open.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made his usual speech about the separation of Northern Ireland matte from those of Great Britain. The fact that we are looking for a return to some form of devolved government persuades us to preserve the present treatment of Northern Ireland matters. Merging the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and Supply procedure with that of Britain would work against that process. Therefore, we listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says each time. But as we begin to know what he will say, he must expect the sort of reply that I have given him.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In case the hon. Gentleman misses an opportunity for variety in future, I should point out that there would be no difficulty—if ever, by some alchemy, a method were discovered of introducing a devolved legislature—in separating these matters from the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Butler: We cannot forecast the outcome of my right hon. Friend's latest initiative and where it may lead us. While there are initiatives and Government policy of that sort it would be wrong to take steps that would make it more difficult when that devolvement came about.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister accept that whatever the Secretary of State may do in the long term about an advisory council or some other mad scheme, the best and quickest solution is for the Northern Ireland Committee to meet regularly in Northern Ireland, so that Ulster people can hear what is said, and for a Select Committee to sit regularly at Stormont?

Mr. Butler: I should be delighted to be drawn down that path, but if I did I should stray outside the rules of order. All that I can say is that I hope that the new initiative will lead onward and that the challenge will be given to those who will participate in the council.
Matters to do with the Public Accounts Committee very much concern the House. The right hon. Member for Down, South raised a number of points about it. The Government are, of course, considering the issues raised in the PAC report, and a memorandum of reply will be represented to the House in due course. It is better to wait for that considered reply than to try to anticipate its contents, perhaps inaccurately.
The matters of housing raised in the debate were dealt with effectively in the brief interventions by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). I do not doubt that there will be others to which he should respond, although such questions have been debated twice recently in the Committee. Therefore, much of what was said has probably been answered in advance, and what we heard was emphasis being given to points that had been dealt with previously.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) dealt especially with the Government's attitude to sport and leisure activities—

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister say more about housing?

Mr. Butler: I prefer not to say any more about housing, because there are many economic matters with which I wish to deal, but I am prepared to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and if I can respond to what he says I shall do so. If not, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will hear what he says.

Mr. Kilfedder: I want to ask the Minister about the waste and the top-heavy organisation of the Housing Executive. Will the Government get rid of the regional offices? May I now have an answer, which I have sought for some time, to the question of the rent of the Town 'n' Country headquarters of the executive in Newtownards?

Mr. Butler: I believe that my hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman today about that last subject. We hope that the letter will arrive over the weekend, or immediately afterwards. My hon. Friend will deal with the question of the executive's tiers of administration, as appropriate.
The Government's attitude towards sporting activities goes much wider than athletics. Sport and leisure, the provision of entertainment and matters of interest to the young, in particular, are important. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde gave special emphasis to the provision of leisure centres. The fact that 11 are now operating is no credit to the present Government. Plans for them, and doubtless the building of them, either took place before we came to office or had been laid and then the building was started. Building has now commenced on three more major sports complexes, at Belfast, Ballymoney and Omagh, for which I think we may take some credit.
In fact, the Northern Ireland Sports Council is receiving substantial funds this year, albeit some reduction on last year. I need not tell the House again of the decision that was taken last year by the Administration to reallocate funds in support of industrial development, providing jobs and job opportunities in the Province. Inevitably, the activities of an organisation such as the Sports Council had to suffer. My noble Friend gives personal support to these activities. He is a frequent attender at sporting events,


including athletics meetings. I hope that more such activities will take place in Northern Ireland, because that will encourage those faint hearts who are concerned about taking part in any activity of any sort in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister comment on the fact that of all the Sports Councils in the United Kingdom, only the Northern Ireland Sports Council is having a reduction? Surely that is not right.

Mr. Butler: I can only repeat what I said a moment ago. It may be true that it is the only sports council that is being treated in that way. Equally, it was Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who took a decision in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to effect this reallocation of resources, because of the special and trying unemployment there.
The next subject properly received a great deal of attention from a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, including the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). It is, of course, agriculture, which is so vital to the Province's economy as a whole. Suggestions were made, which I totally refute, that this Administration are not concerned to help solve the problems of that industry. That is totally incorrect, and is evidenced particularly by the injection of £10 million into the industry, which was well received by farmers in Ulster. That money was aimed to help the sectors that were hardest hit, such as the beef sector, particularly the intensive livestock sector, and, of course, milk. No one pretends that that money will be sufficient by itself to meet the shortfall in incomes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is evidence of the Government's realisation and acceptance of the difficulties facing agriculture and of their determination to support agriculture in what is undoubtedly a difficult period. There is further evidence of that determination in the money that is forthcoming from the EEC—the £34 million or so to be paid over the next 10 years.
I was asked about the interest relief payments that the industry in the Republic of Ireland is likely to receive. I gather that this matter will be discussed at a forthcoming Agriculture Ministers' meeting. Frankly, there is no question of that type of aid being given to Ulster's farmers.
The question of the Coleraine drainage came up, as it has done on previous occasions. I should be happy to elaborate on the matter in a note. We are looking for the most cost-effective way of carrying out this responsibility, and I have no reason to believe that there will be any prejudice to the efficient drainage of land in Northern Ireland resulting from the downgrading of the Coleraine office.
The hon. Member for Londonderry spoke about salmon poaching. I do not see the hon. Gentleman in his place at present, but I understand that he will be meeting my noble Friend Lord Elton next week to discuss this problem as it concerns the River Bann. I have no doubt that my noble Friend will be happy to widen the discussion to include the sea off the North Coast. In fact, there is very good co-operation now between the RUC, the Garda and the Foyle Fishery Commission staff, and this has resulted in a considerable reduction in the level of poaching in the Foyle. However, that is a matter which the hon. Gentleman can develop at greater leisure with my noble Friend.
Smuggling has given the Government cause for considerable concern, as it has right hon. and hon. Members. Again, the rate of activity has been stepped up, and I understand that Customs and Excise officials have identified and seized a significant number of animals suspected of evading the MCA levy payable on their importation into the United Kingdom, and special additional control measures have been introduced with the agreement of the Irish authorities. Nevertheless, with a border of that length it is inevitable that some illicit movement occurs.
Abbey Meats has been mentioned again. The problem of the meat processors is a very serious one. It is caused solely by those civil servants who are on strike. In this case, I think that it is the ones who operate the Guildford computer centre. This is one of the many effects of that strike, and we must hope that any talks which are going on at present or are likely to take place will bring a resolution of it. We cannot afford to have one group of people in our community doing harm to others who, I suggest, face very much greater financial problems in their own lives and businesses than those who are on strike.
The problem is one which the Intervention Board is well aware of, and it is doing all that it can to assist individual plants. In co-operation with the banks it is able to assign money to company accounts. It is recognised that that form of help is of limited value, but it is at least of some assistance in present circumstances.
I turn to the subject of energy, about which a great number of questions were asked. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked what was happening in County Fermanagh. The hon. Gentleman apologised to me in advance and said that he had to catch a plane, so we recognise why he is not in his place at present. Many hon. Members are waiting for me to sit down so that they can leave, but the hon. Gentleman could not wait. He asked what was happening in County Fermanagh. A licence was issued a few weeks ago. Exploratory boring is either taking place or will be shortly. We must wait to see whether the traces of gas previously identified are of commercial quantities, which can be exploited. Clearly, there is a prospect there, but my advice is that we should not get too excited about it.
On the other hand, we were sufficiently encouraged by the prospects of taking gas from the Kinsale field to appoint two consultants to examine more closely all the implications of buying such gas. My officials in the Department are involved. We hope that we shall be able to take a further decision towards the end of the year. That depends on whether we get clear answers to the questions.
Hon. Members have queried again whether it might be better to look across the water to the mainland for supplies of natural gas. We examined that possibility in relation to Scottish supplies. It was judged to be uneconomic and was turned down. Kinsale gas might be uneconomic. I have no idea at this stage whether that will be so. At the moment the prospects of obtaining gas from the Kinsale field at an economic price and without enormous cost to the United Kingdom-Northern Ireland budget look better than they did in relation to Scotland. I have noted the point about the possible lower cost of tying in to the Morecambe Bay experiment. That requires more investigation.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) was a little ungenerous about what the Government have done about electricity tariffs. I checked to find out the situation when the Government came to power. The


domestic tariff was about 5 per cent. above the highest in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is the point to which we have now brought it again. Of course, it will, by this time next year, be down to the same rate. There has been no difference between the execution and the Prime Minister's statement about her intent. I believe that we have done slightly better than what the Prime Minister suggested. She said that we would bring tariffs more into line and we shall bring them in line with the top rate in Britain.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the source of funds. The £44·9 million will be additional money. That is important for the future. We do not take one subject in isolation but we regard it as part of all the other public expenditures. We have said that the tariffs will be kept down. So long as costs in Northern Ireland are higher, there must be a continuing measure of subsidy.
I turn to the main economic subjects, particularly unemployment and industrial development. The right hon. Member for Mansfield let his sentiment run away with him. In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) there was some contradiction. I do not believe that even the right hon. Gentleman considers that we must keep plant open regardless.
The sad record of what happened during the period of the Last labour Government bears witness to that. IEL Ltd. was the same as ICL, Rolls-Royce and Courtaulds. They had plants employing hundreds and sometimes thousands or more people and they closed during the period of the last Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman realises as well as I that one cannot just put money in to save jobs, particularly when there is no future for them. If he did that he would put at risk jobs in other sectors of the economy. If he did that where there was no prospect of viability fir that company that money would he wasted. Not surprisingly, we heard support for that view from the right hon. Member for Down, South.
Let us look at how the Government tackled the British Enkalon closure. I hope that from what I say it will become clear that the, Government are fully aware of the social problems associated with such closures, of the implications for a community that is so heavily dependent on one factory—a community which has come together and been built around a plant that has been in operation for nearly 20 years. If the Government had been approaching the problem from a purely economic and commercial point of view the amount of money that we would have offered the company would have been minimal in comparison with what was finally offered.
I was asked to make a full statement. Inevitably, it must be brief. The company came to us at the end of last year with the intention of a shutdown. It would be inappropriate to disclose all the steps in the negotiation, as was asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the amount of money involved and those who took part. I had meetings with management, unions, local Members of Parliament, three meetings with the mayor and meetings with other representatives of the council. They all impressed upon me the seriousness of the position.
In the end, we offered the company precisely half of the costs that it said were likely to be necessary to keep the plant in operation for two and a half or three years, during which time it expected to make losses. That figure

included a contribution to the losses, and other related expenditure. The total cost was £17 million. It is on record that the Government were prepared to offer £8½ million.
It goes further than that. The sticking point with the company was that it wanted the Government to take the risk on the loan repayments, to remove its own group guarantee and to forgo the repayment of grants. I must say—and it is a new statement—that in taking into account what money might be put into a company in such circumstances, one must consider what money might be recovered in the event of closure.
In relation to the loan and grant repayments, we are talking about a number of millions of pounds. Those millions of pounds must be added to the amount that we were prepared to offer to discover the cost to the Exchequer and the taxpayer. It was a matter of the greatest regret that the company was not prepared to accept the generous offer that we put before it. Since it did not, we have funds available that we would not otherwise have. Although the company had a commercial reason for wishing to concentrate activities in Holland it did not give us any sign of having much faith in the future of that factory. That was evidenced by the fact that it was not prepared to put in substantial sums of money. In those circumstances, we could not go one penny further.
I do not want to raise any expectations that there could be a change in that decision, either by the Government or by the company. If the hon. Member for Antrim, South wishes to talk to me about proposals, I shall listen. However, it would be wholly wrong to raise expectations.
Another company for which we have provided continuing finance is Harland and Wolff. The amount over the years since 1966 totals £170 million. When broken down the figures show that the support for the period to 1979 was about £60 million; for the two years to 1981 it was £65 million, and another £46 million for this year. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford and a great many others should ask whether that should continue. It is a vast amount of money. If we felt that we would be faced with sums of that size into the years ahead we would have to take a different decision from the one that we took in being prepared to finance the company at least for this current year.

Mr. Bradford: Bearing in mind that to provide approximately 7,000 people with unemployment benefit would cost £35 million per year, the figure which the Minister has just given represents almost precisely that figure over the 1976–81 period. Does not the Minister accept that there is much more to be gained by keeping the yard open in the hope that it will take advantage of the upturn in the tanker trade rather than closing it at this stage?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman's figures are not those which the Treasury uses. The figure would be much lower. It may be that that is the right decision. The company's corporate plan will be considered by Ministers and a decision will be made in due course. At this time we have agreed funding for the current financial year. Let us hope that the market picks up and that better productivity can be achieved by producing ships of the sort that the yard was designed to build. However, that depends on the management. The new chairman is doing a good job, but it is up to the management and the work force to get those costs down, to get the orders and to get the deliveries, on schedule. All those things rest heavily on the yard.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: For the morale of Harland and Wolff, is it not desirable that an early decision be made on the corporate plan? Can my hon. Friend give an approximate date for that, and can he also comment on the diversification report?

Mr. Butler: The diversification review team has put its report before Ministers. The intention was that a public announcement of what it said would accompany the Government's statement on the corporate plan. I do not believe that the review team report will have shown any great opportunity for that yard outside its main shipbuilding activity. As regards an early decision, I do not believe that Ministers will come to conclusions for a little while. On the other hand, it is essential—I hope that this will be so—that damage should not be done, that the company should be able to carry on with its various cost-cutting exercises and that it will continue in the pursuit of orders.
I am left with the main thing that I wish to say. Perhaps it can be summed up simply by saying that the Government share with all those who have spoken and all those in the Province the greatest possible anxiety and concern about the levels of unemployment. We have not shrunk from admitting to the House that we believe that there will still be some increase—certainly, inevitably an increase—in the overall total as the school leavers come on to the register. Equally, there are some signs at least that the underlying trend and the increase in the seasonal figure are slowing down. There are good signs that that is so.
Meanwhile, we have a monstrous problem on our hands. There are young people by the thousand out of jobs. In his opening speech my hon. Friend referred to the increases under the YOP programme. As regards the longer-term adult unemployed the ACE scheme is being well supported and is looking to be fully subscribed. We have to persevere in the pursuit of those special employment measures. I think that all of us are interested in what the outcome may be in the national discussion on the ideas contained in the MSC's new initiative.
At the same time we have to pursue our industrial development policy. I shall make a brief comment on the small business sector. Criticisms of LEDU have been made today. They are not justified. The people concerned

with LEDU are generally doing a good job. Nobody is perfect, but the activity rate at the moment is about twice as high as it was this time last year. Jobs will be forthcoming from that increased activity—not as many as we would like, but it is a healthy part of the industrial economy of Northern Ireland now.
I have been told many times that we must support indigenous industry. I agree. We must particularly seek out those companies in Northern Ireland that are successful and making profits, see whether they have an expansion potential, and put money behind them to encourage them.
Inward investment will suffer from the Province's image, particularly as a result of the violence of the past few weeks surrounding the hunger strike problem. That is a serious matter. I repeat that the damage done to employment in Northern Ireland can be attributed largely to the terrorist activity and, more particularly, to the image that comes across in the media. The Government are working hard to improve the image, but the vivid pictures seen on television and recorded in the newspapers stick too readily in people's minds. We have an uphill task, but we shall persevere to the best of our ability.
The picture in Northern Ireland does not, on first analysis, look at all bright. We have our own difficult problems, but, equally, the people of Northern Ireland have over the years demonstrated an extraordinary resilience and strength of character in the face of adversity. That resilience and strength, backed by the quite proper and favourable proportion of national resources that were put into the Province by the Government's determination to act in solving the problem and the certain evidence of an improvement in the competitiveness of industry, which is the case with so many companies in Northern Ireland, as it is in Great Britain, leads us to believe that when the upturn in the recession comes our industry will be able to expand once more.
Those are the grounds for hope. Meanwhile, we must battle—and battle we will—against the problems of unemployment, and we shall help the young and all those especially concerned. I therefore ask support for the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Local Authorities (Functions and Services)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]

Mr. Bob Dunn: I wish today to present the case for the privatisation of local authority services and functions and perhaps to dwell upon the benefits that the pursuit of such a policy will bring to local authorities and to the people whom they seek to represent and serve.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in two ways. The first is for detaining him here this afternoon. The bad news is that he is here; the good news is that the debate was not held last Wednesday morning.
That a case needs to be presented is self-evident, first, because the vast majority of people serving in local government, whether as elected representatives or as paid officials, have followed an historical pattern of behaviour brought about by the nature of local government legislation and practice as placed on the statute book since the 1880s. Secondly, local authority management, in the form of locally elected councillors, has failed to realise the opportunities now available to it.
Local authorities today intrude into our lives in a way that was never envisaged. They can, for example, influence for good or evil the employment opportunities within the area of their management. The intrusion that takes place is in the degree of efficiency and the form of services as provided and the payment by domestic and industrial ratepayers, as well as by the taxpayer at large, of the cost of those services.
The House will not be surprised when I point out that in 1969 only 36·8 per cent. of current and capital expenditure and 48·6 per cent. of current expenditure came in the form of local authority grants from central Government. By 1979, only 47·9 per cent. of current and capital expenditure and 55·5 per cent. of current expenditure came from Government.
The burden of the rates, as we know from our experiences in Camden, Southwark, Manchester, Sheffield and Lambeth, acts as a disincentive to further industrial expansion and leads to the ultimate closure of factories and shops as the burden of rates, rate increases and supplementary rate levy finally pushes small and medium-sized businesses from profit into loss.
The House will not be surprised to hear that in 1978–79 the domestic rate increased by 9·6 per cent. for all authorities in England and Wales. In 1979–80 it increased by 18·5 per cent. and in 1980–81 by 27·1 per cent. Additionally, over the past 10 years there has been an increase in local government employment. In 1969, 2,505,000 people were employed by local government. By 1975 the figure had reached 2,974,000 and by 1980, 3,013,000. Clearly, local authorities today are very big business. In 1969, local authorities' local and current capital expenditure amounted to £6,096 million. By 1974 the figure had doubled to £12,929 million, while by 1979 it had more than quadrupled to £24,444 million. Allowing for salaries and wage costs, especially in the education service, local government remains a costly and, until recently, monopolistic service, funded almost entirely by the twin supports of local rates and the rate support grant.
As local government expenditure has grown, so, inversely, it appears, or it is perceived by the recipients of services, that the services provided have remained constant or in some cases have declined. Local councils should heed that view. Moderate councils that carry out their statutory obligations to an adequate standard as well as the more expensive local authorities in the United Kingdom should seize the opportunity, which until the election of the Conservative Government did not exist, to examine the way in which their services are administered. If they are satisfied that their existing operations provide the best services at the best cost, privatisation should be left alone. If, however, services are not achieved according to that criterion, privatisation should be entertained.
Local councils these days should regard themselves as managers of their local authorities. They now have the power to shape events. Because of the nature of their task, they should perhaps be regarded as socially aware directors of "Local Authorities Ltd.". For those in local authorities today the message is clear. Any saving in expenditure means the creation of resources for other necessary projects. The greater the bureaucracy, and the greater the absorption of costs into the running of that bureaucracy, the less there is for the provision of services needed elsewhere.
Although I should like to argue that there should be a requirement on local authorities to consider privatisation, I must accept entirely that if we support any form of local autonomy a decision should be left to the authorities themselves. I want local authority managers to take on board schemes for privatisation and to accept from the House a direct challenge to inquire and to consider the benefits that privatisation would bring.
Undoubtedly, any hon. Member who advocates a policy of privatisation will be asked what is the extent of the savings and where can they be made. I am reminded, in a press statement from a company dealing with this very subject, that privatisation—an American word—is a process by which local authority services are put out to tender by private contractors. In the United States, savings of up to 40 per cent. have been achieved in many cities by privatisation of refuse collection services. The bill for refuse collection in England and Wales alone is £500 million per year. A saving of at least 20 per cent. of that amount must merit consideration by those responsible to the ratepayers.
As the House knows, ratepayers are becoming increasingly desperate as rate demands reach excessive levels and the quality of local services declines. Local authorities are apparently trapped in a spiral of escalating costs, high labour intensity and declining quality. Any break-out from this dilemma is hampered by local government's monopoly position—supported, as I said earlier, almost entirely by rate and rate support grant income—which removes any incentive to local authority managers to seek greater efficiency in alternative forms and means of providing services.
The only authority in the United Kingdom which has achieved any great success in this regard is the borough of Southend, in Essex. Southend's privatisation of refuse disposal has led to a reduction this year in the rate demand. Almost 80 per cent. of Southend's direct labour force were offered jobs by the private contractor who was asked to take over that service. The people employed by the private contractor receive wages that are 20 per cent. higher than


the local authority's wage rates. The net saving in 1981–82 on Southend's refuse collection bill is well in excess of £400,000.
I remind the House that the failure to grasp the opportunities provided by existing legislation will, if savings can be made, prove a costly mistake to make.
I have been told by my own local authority that it is none of my business to advance the cause of privatisation, but as long as local authority expenditure is funded to such a large degree from the Government, I regard it as right and proper—and, indeed, my duty—to advance a cause in which I believe, and which, if understood and applicable, can act as a factor to reduce the financial imposition of local authority costs upon my constituents, whether in the domestic or the industrial sector.
In the debate about privatisation, the onus is on those who are opposed to it to satisfy themselves that they provide their services properly and that their intentions are carried out at the best level of efficiency and at the best cost. Local councillors should be reminded that they manage big business, and that, for the first time in many years, if ever, they have the right to shape events in a way that their predecessors did not.
I hope that many local councils will listen to the debate and not simply advance the view that reform is all right as long as things remain the same.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for raising an issue that I suspect we on these Benches—and I am very glad to see that I am supported by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)— wholeheartedly espouse.
It might be for the convenience of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford if I were to make some observations about what privatisation should be, because there seems to be some idea that what we might be wishing to do is to take away local government services at a stroke and, possibly even more importantly, local authority control over such services, and to place such services outside that control.
My hon. Friends know very well that that is not necessarily the case. We start from the premise that my hon. Friend so eloquently put to the House, which is that when we are faced with an ever-increasing demand for local authorities to be supported by taxation—whether it be at the local level or at the central level—it behoves all local authorities to see that their services are as efficiently produced as possible.
I think that my hon. Friend would also agree that when we are faced, as we are, with the need for restraint on Government support for local authority expenditure, that is the time when every local authority will be looking at the consequences. When faced with the need to reduce their costs, or when faced with cuts, the authorities' first question should be not "Which service can we cut?" but "How can we supply each service more efficiently?" It is in that context that my hon. Friend's case for privatisation is so important.
I commend to my hon. Friend—if he does not already know it—a booklet that was produced by Mr. Michael Forsyth in, I think, December 1980, entitled "Re-servicing Britain". It was published by the Adam Smith Institute and is therefore a publication of some importance. This helps to clarify some of the principles upon which privatisation could be based. One of the first such principles is its very variable nature. I could well be that local authorities would seek to involve private sector activity on a joint or partnership basis, on a wholesale contracting-out basis, or, quite frequently, on a combination that includes voluntary co-operation of various groups in the local authority area. In this publication, which I commend to my hon. Friend, Mr. Forsyth argues that privatisation
combines public service with private provision, and represents the attempt to blend public accountability and control of standards with the private enterprise disciplines of efficiency, cost-effectiveness and responsiveness to consumer requirements".
That, it seems to me, is the right starting place for discussing the principle. It is interesting to note that although my Department does not, for obvious reasons, keep an entirely accurate and up-to-date record of everything that goes on within local authorities, because we believe, wherever possible, in not intervening in their affairs, there are some very good examples quoted by Mr. Forsyth of the varied way in which the private sector is involved. He quotes the case, which I think will interest the House, of Northampton city council, which has set a lead in the running of its local bus services.
Instead of merely cutting out the services on routes which its transport department could not make pay, Northampton purchased a minibus, taught volunteers to drive it, and gave them the bus to operate on uneconomic routes. Fares are charged to cover costs, and a fund has been established which will soon have enough to enable the council to buy a second bus.
A second example comes from a county authority much nearer the constituency of my hon. Friend—the Kent county council, which I understand produced a remarkable combination of a private contract and voluntary effort. In collaboration with the personal social services research unit at the University of Kent it set up a community care scheme the basis of which is paying families to undertake good neighbour tasks for dependent elderly persons. Faced with an increasing number of old people needing to be put into care and the ever-mounting costs of caring for those in institutions, the community care scheme succeeded in recruiting motivated individuals to look after people in their own homes.
Those are two examples, very varied in type, that local authorities have already decided to implement and yet, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, there is no more opportune moment than now to discuss privatisation across the whole spectrum, where it could interact to the benefit of ratepayers and taxpayers alike in the provision of local authority services. My hon. Friend is right to quote the massive costs of local authorities, involving expenditure of £20 billion a year. It amounts to about one-quarter of all public expenditure. It is this starting point that is so relevant to the debate that my hon. Friend initiated.
Of course, we in Government recognise that there have to be safeguards in introducing any wholesale schemes for privatisation. Local authorities, after all, are responsible to their electorates for satisfying themselves of the standards of the services that any outside contractor or any other agency of the council will provide. They have to consider the need for continuity of service provision. They naturally have to discuss with the unions the job


implications. The terms of the contract need to be considered carefully. All this is not, in itself, an insuperable obstacle to obtaining a happy blend between local authority good management practice and private sector operations.
Private firms themselves, I suggest to my hon. Friend, should come forward perhaps more vigorously than at present to sell the services that they have to offer to individual authorities. Of course, the greatest stimulus for them is increased demand for their services. But they must themselves help shape the climate of local opinion in which they seek to operate and show that they can provide a particular service, to the benefit of local ratepayers and consumers.
As a Government, we see our main role as encouraging local authorities to consider contracting out as one of the opportunities for making savings. We would consider that at the present time, when restraints on public expenditure from the centre are so obvious to all local authorities, this is surely the right opportunity for a reappraisal.
A major step in this direction has been the provisions on direct labour organisations in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which came into force in England and. Wales on 1 April this year. DLOs now have to bid for a substantial proportion of their work against competitive tenders from the private sector. They have to earn a prescribed rate of return on their capital—at present, 5 per cent. On a current cost accounting basis. Authorities have to keep full trading accounts and publish annual reports giving a detailed assessment of the performance of DLOs. We have thus promoted fair competition and encouraged authorities to consider the contracting-out alternative.
Local authorities should, in the light of their own circumstances, consider the scope for adopting similar arrangements for other activities. The Government are taking steps to help them in this regard by improving the information about existing practices and the scope for alternatives. Here I think that my hon. Friend did a service by pointing out that one of the problems is the lack of information about what is available for local authorities to act upon.
Greater awareness is needed of the areas in which contracting out has been shown to be successful. Greater awareness is also needed of the factors that have to be considered and the practicalities of the contracting arrangements. We have therefore commissioned consultants to examine service delivery and pricing arrangements and the scope for alternatives across a range of local environmental services in England. I think that my hon. Friend will he aware that the range of services provided by local authorities is very wide. Therefore, the range for looking at alternative methods of supplying them could be regarded as equally large. Whether it is parks, gardens and the growing of plants, on the one hand, or highway and housing maintenance, on the other, there is a huge range of services that local authorities can consider contracting out if it is shown to be beneficial in efficient services to their consumers.
The report of this body of consultants, based on a series of case studies in a sample of authorities, will be published later this year. This should help to promote more informed debate and spread experience of the practical considerations involved in contracting out. I shall write to my hon. Friend when we have received the report and studied it.
There are, I believe, obvious opportunities for contracting out refuse collection. My hon. Friend drew attention to the scheme in Southend. There is no intention here to criticise the managers or the men who have run what is, on the whole, a fairly good service for a century or more. I particularly commend two features of the refuse collection service in the United Kingdom. It is comprehensive, with virtually every property in the United Kingdom getting a regular service to and from its door, and it is reliable all the year round. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the need for periodic reviews. Circumstances change. The private waste disposal industry has grown to a very large size. It is now seeking out work in local authorities. It would be short-sighted not to see what it has to offer.
One particular advantage of private sector participation is that it holds out a prospect of exporting the service. Local authorities will never export, however good their service may be. But one sees European and American cleaning and waste management firms confidently bidding for work in the Middle East and elsewhere, and building on a demonstrable record of experience at home. That is a good reason why the Government should seek to encourage that kind of development.
This fits in well with our work in the United Kingdom on mechanised waste sorting and recovery systems. We are among the leaders in developing technology that really works. Southend is the most recent example of contracting out refuse collection. It estimates that it will save £500,000 on a previous annual cost of £2¼ million. As the first authority in Britain to contract out the whole of this service I am sure that many other local authorities will be watching its progress very closely. Dissemination of information among authorities about practical experience is of great value. I particularly welcome Southend's decision to make available for sale documents summarising its experience, so that other authorities can have the benefit of the lessons that it has learnt.
We should also remember that in highways and housing maintenance, contracting out by local authorities is already the norm. Our impression is that much the larger part of highways maintenance, by value, is already carried out by private contractors. The majority of new housing construction and a considerable amount of maintenance is also done by contractors. The recent DLO provisions, which I mentioned, have further improved prospects for contracting out these types of works. In highways construction projects, overseen by county councils as agents of the Department of Transport, compulsory tendering of jobs over £100,000 has long been the rule, and the great bulk of the work goes to private firms.
There may well be more private sector involvement in architectural and other professional services. In Kensington and Chelsea, for example, a private practice has been set up, with the council's encouragement, formed from the director of architecture and other architectural staff. I understand that in Oldham the council has contracted out all its quantity surveying work for many years now. Some other across-the-board services, such as cleaning, vehicle maintenance and catering, may also be worthy of consideration. Southend has also recently contracted out a major part of its office cleaning service, with estimated savings of £30,000 on a total previous cost of about £50,000 a year.
Looking overseas, we can see that the potential for contracting out is wider still. My hon. Friend referred to


experience in the United States. Several local authorities there follow the example of Lakewood, in California, where almost all municipal services are provided either by the private sector or by larger local authorities. In the United States and Europe there is a range of other examples, from park maintenance to the fire service. A paper by my Department drawing together material about experience abroad is available to local authorities on request.
It is worth stressing that there is a variety of other options worth exploring, as well as the wholesale contracting out of an activity. Joint ventures with private firms are one. Agency arrangements with other authorities are another. There is no one model for all situations, and several different combinations can have a role, which is why I found Mr. Forsyth's pamphlet so useful. As my hon. Friend said, there may be areas of service provision from which a local authority may decide to withdraw in the interests of allocating restricted resources where they are most needed. That could create additional openings for private firms.
My hon. Friend is right when he says that the climate is changing. More and more authorities are recognising the importance of a thorough re-evaluation of their priorities.

I was concerned to hear that my hon. Friend's local authority has taken an adverse view of the prospect. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a duty of hon. Members and every local authority to examine provision of services in the search for improved efficiency and better value for money.
In the end, as any local authority will recognise, its ratepayers and electors will determine whether they are satisfied with what the council does. There is no doubt that because of the present level of rates and the fact that supplementary rates are levelled several times during the year electors have decided in many cases that they have had enough. Therefore, local authorities have to be sensitive, to reduce their costs, and to look at their services to see whether they can find other ways of satisfying the markets that they serve.
Privatisation is not the only option available to local authorities, but surely it is the one that merits most consideration. As more information becomes available about its potential scope and advantages I hope that local government will increasingly give it the attention that it deserves. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Four o'clock.